Delhi High Court
Staff Selection Commission vs Kritika Raj on 19 May, 2016
$~22
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 4519/2016 & CM Nos.18850-61/2016
Date of Decision : 19th May, 2016
STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Arun Bhardwaj, CGSC with
Mr. Shukla & Mr. Minansak
Bhardwaj, Advocate
versus
KRITIKA RAJ ..... Respondent
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI
SANJIV KHANNA, J. (ORAL)
Staff Selection Commission, by this writ petition, impugns the order
dated 7th December, 2015 passed by the Principal Bench of Central
Administrative Tribunal, whereby OA No.1413/2015 filed by Ms. Kritika
Raj has been allowed, with a direction that, if otherwise eligible, she would
be appointed to the post of Assistant in the Central Civil Service ('CSS').
The respondent had appeared in the Combined Graduate Level
Examination-2013 vide Roll No.2201032268. On the basis of her
performance in Tier-I and Tier-II examination, the respondent had opted for
an interview post and was interviewed on 9th January, 2015. Being eligible,
she had also participated in the Computer Proficiency Test ('CP Test') on
29th January, 2015. This CP Test consisted of three modules - Word
Processing, Spreadsheet and Generation of Slides. The said test was a
qualifying test for candidates seeking appointment to the post of Assistant in
CSS.
As per the results declared on 12th March, 2015, the respondent was
declared as selected for the post of Assistant in CSS vide rank
No.SL/I/1414. However, this result was cancelled due to system failure. In
the revised result published on 25th March, 2015, the respondent was ranked
at SL/I/1415 as she was allotted 'zero' marks in PowerPoint (Module-III) in
CP Test. The respondent, as per the said marksheet, had obtained 62 marks
in Module-II, i.e., Excel Test. Having not qualified the CP Test, she was
declared ineligible for appointment as an Assistant.
The reason given for awarding 'zero' marks to the respondent was
that she had incorrectly filled-up her Roll No. in the Powerpoint Exercise
Sheet, as 221032268 instead of 2201032268. In other words, she had missed
the numerical 'zero' after the initial numericals '22'.
The Tribunal in the impugned order, for varied and detailed reasons,
has accepted and allowed the OA and held that award of 'zero' marks in
Module-III was improper and wrong.
The printout of the original slide of Module-III has been produced in
the Court. The name of the candidate, i.e., the respondent, was transcribed
by the candidate. The slide mentions the date and time when the respondent
had developed the said slide on the computer. Module-I and II tests were
undertaken on the same date and time. The Module-III paper was evaluated
and the respondent obtained 86 marks out of 100. It is noticeable that the
first three numerical, i.e., 220 represent the regional office code. The actual
or identifying Roll No. of the respondent was 1032268. These seven digits
would identify the particular candidate.
The CP Test required the candidate to mention her name and this
procedure and requirement was unlike the written Tier-I and Tier-II
examination, where the identity, i.e., name etc. are hidden and concealed.
Further, the CP Test was merely a qualifying examination, i.e., a candidate
was required to pass. The marks awarded in the said examination were not
to be added to the overall score.
In view of the aforesaid position, we do not think it is appropriate and
proper for us to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. We agree
that, in a given situation writing an incorrect roll number may have different
consequences. However, in the present case, the error made was
inconsequential and immaterial as the name of the candidate was mentioned
on the Slide Test (Module-III), correct roll number was mentioned and
recorded in Module-I and II conducted simultaneously and that there was no
scope or debate about the identity of the candidate. No confusion or
inconvenience was caused. The error and lapse in the present factual matrix
would not justify disqualification or rejection.
The writ petition being devoid of merit is dismissed. CM Nos.18850-
61/2016 also stand dismissed.
SANJIV KHANNA, J
NAJMI WAZIRI, J
MAY 19, 2016
tp
