Rohit Karmali vs The Union Of India
2024 Latest Caselaw 781 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Rohit Karmali vs The Union Of India on 23 January, 2024

Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad

Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                      W.P.(S) No.3555 of 2023

         Rohit Karmali, aged about 35 years, son of Binod Karmali, Resident of
         Village- Parchuttu, P.O. Newari Vikas, P.S. Sadar District, Ranchi,
         Jharkhand                                             ...... Petitioner
                                       Versus
     1. The Union of India
     2. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited through its General Manager
        (Recruitment), having its office at B.S.N.L. Corporate Office, Janpath
        New Delhi P.O. & P.S. Janpath New Delhi, District- New Delhi
     3. Chief General Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Jharkhand
        Circle, having its office at ARTTC Complex near Jumar River,
        Getlatu TATA PATNA ROAD NH-33, and P.O. & P.S. Booty,
        District-Ranchi, Jharkhand
     4. Assistant General Manager, (ADMIN) Bharat Sanchar Nigam
        Limited, Jharkhand Circle having its office at ARTTC Complex near
        Jumar River, Getlatu TATA PATNA ROAD NH-33 and P.O. & P.S.-
        Booty, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand                  ......Respondents
                                       ----------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

-----

For the Petitioner : Mr. Mahesh Tewari, Advocate For the Res. No.1 : Mr. Sunil Kumar, Advocate For the Res. Nos.2-4 Mr. Prabhat Kr. Sinha, Advocate Ms. Kumari Ranjana Singh, Advocate .....

Order No.06/ Dated:23.01.2024 Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J

1. The writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is

directed against the order dated 17.05.2023 passed by the learned Central

Administrative Tribunal, in O.A. No. 051/000311/2023 by which the

relief sought for by the petitioner for declaration and publication of the

correct result of the written test held on 28.10.2016 for the post of Junior

Engineer (JE) (ERSTWHILE TTA) pursuant to online BSNL DRJE

examination, 2016 has been refused to be granted by dismissing the

original application.

2. The brief facts of this case as per pleading in the writ petition needs to

be refer hereunder. It is evident from the actual aspect that the petitioner

has participated in selection process pursuant to online B.S.N.L. DRSE

examination. The result was declared but as per the grievance of the writ

petitioner the said result was based upon the wrong entry of the Adhar

Number and hence the petitioner has considered to be incorrect analysis of

evaluation of the answer sheet, the same was done on the basis of the

wrong entry of the UID No.

3. The further ground has been taken that whatever marks has been

allotted to the writ petitioner cannot be said to be correct since when the

writ petitioner has compared the said marks from the answer which has

been published by the respondent, the same will clarify the situation. He

has answered 198 questions and hence, there is no question of awarding

zero marks declaring the writ petitioner to be disqualified. The writ

petitioner by raising the said grievance has approached to the learned

tribunal that within application under Section 14 of the Administrative

Tribunal Act, 1985, the learned tribunal has called upon the respondent

BSNL who has filed counter affidavit and has disputed the contention

raised by taking the ground that UID no. even though wrongly been

referred but the same is not the code number allotted to the answer sheet

of all the other applicants, rather, as per the own internal mechanism the

answer sheet was coded and subsequently it was decoded at the time of

tabulation of the result. The ground has also been taken by placing before

the learned tribunal that marks obtained by the applicant was zero in the

part 1 general ability, 13.5 marks in part 2, Basic Engineering and 06

marks in part III specialization. It has further been contended that the

name and roll number of the applicant are correct herein and hence the

petitioner having found to be not in the list of the meritorious candidates

and he has been declared to be disqualified as such, there is no illegality in

the selection process.

4. The learned tribunal has considered the rival submission and agreeing

with the stand taken by the respondents has dismissed the original

application which is under challenged before this Court under the power

of judicial review as conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India by virtue of the Judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the

case of L. Chandra Kumar Versus Union of India & Ors. reported in

(1997) 3 SCC 261.

5. Mr. Mahesh Tewari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has

vehemently argued by questioning the order passed by the learned

Tribunal mainly on the ground that there is no consideration said to be in

right prospective in dismissing the contention raised by the petitioner so

far as it raised to making reference of wrong UID No. in the answer sheet.

It has been argued that the UID no. which has been mentioned therein

does not pertain to the applicant.

6. It has further been argued that the UID No. has been used for the

purpose of coding of the answer sheet and when the wrong reference of

UID No. has been made in the answer sheet; Therefore, the decision

making process cannot be said to be proper and in view of the matter

learned tribunal ought to have considered the aforesaid fact but having not

done so, illegality has been committed. As such the order impugned

suffers from an error and hence, not sustainable in the eyes of law.

7. Per Contra, Mr. Prabhat Kr. Sinha, learned counsel appearing for

B.S.N.L. has defended the order passed by the learned tribunal by taking

the ground that it was based upon the written statement filed before it

wherein ground inter alia was taken that UID No. was not the basis of the

coding for the purpose of maintaining secrecy in the matter of evaluation

of the answer sheet.

8. It has been contended that the Adhar No. was obtained from the

candidates for general purposes and not to be used for the purpose of

coding and decoding. Further contention has been made that marks of the

appellant has been shown to be zero in part 1 and in another paper are

very less and as such while preparing the merit list, the appellant has

secured lesser marks than the last selected candidate, thus the petitioner

has not been listed in the list of the successful candidates.

9. The learned counsel, based upon the aforesaid ground, has submitted

that the learned tribunal has dismissed the original application based upon

the procedural ground and the same cannot be said to suffer from any

error and as such the instant writ petition is having no merit, hence, it is fit

to be dismissed.

10. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the finding

recorded by learned Tribunal as available in the impugned order.

11. The undisputed fact in this case is that the writ petitioner has

participated in the process of recruitment for fulfilling the post of Junior

Engineer. The aforesaid recruitment process consisted of Part 1, Part 2

and Part 3. The petitioner as per the condition stipulated in the

advertisement was also required to furnish the UID No. (Adhar Card No.)

which was required to be submitted by all aspirants who have spirits. The

petitioner has not been shown under the list of the successful candidates

since he has been declared to be disqualified.

12. The writ petitioner after getting information and based upon his

perception that he has answered total 198 questions out of 200 and hence,

there being no question of awarding zero marks in part 1 and less marks in

other papers.

13. As such, writ petitioner being aggrieved with the said decision and

considering it to be error in the decision making process has approached

to the tribunal seeking therein the relief for publication of fresh result by

making correction in the result and to issue the appointment letter in his

favour.

14. The tribunal has dismissed the aforesaid application against which this

writ petition.

15. It is evident from the pleading and also argument advanced on behalf

of the petitioner that the jurisdiction of the tribunal was invoked mainly on

the ground by showing that there was error in the decision making

process. Such ground has been taken based upon the fact that writ

petitioner has answered total 198 out of 200 questions in paper 1 and

hence, there is no question for providing zero marks and thereby as also

the lesser marks in the other papers.

16. The writ petitioner based upon the aforesaid pretext has taken the

ground that the same is nothing but an error in the decision making

process and hence, has tried to impress upon the tribunal to show

interference on the ground of error in the decision making process.

17. The law is well settled in the matter of recruitment or in any other

matters, the jurisdiction of the writ court is very limited so far as it relates

to the decision but the High Court in exercise of the power conferred

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can well interfere with the

decision of the authority if the Court exercising the power under Article

226 of the Constitution of India comes to the conclusion that there is an

error in the decision making process. Reference in this regard is made to

the Judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the Case of K.

Vinod Kumar v. S. Palanisamy, (2003) 10 SCC 681. Relevant paragraph

is quoted herein:-

11. The law is settled that over proceedings and decisions taken in administrative matters, the scope of judicial review is confined to the decision-making process and does not extend to the merits of the decision taken. No infirmity is pointed out in the proceedings of the Selection Board which may have the effect of vitiating the selection process. The capability of the appellant herein to otherwise perform as an LPG distributor is not in dispute. The High Court was not, therefore, justified in interfering with the decision of the Selection Board and the decision of BPCL to issue the letter of allotment to the appellant herein.

The Hon'ble Apex Court further in the case of Jayrajbhai

Jayantibhai Patel v. Anilbhai Nathubhai Patel, (2006) 8 SCC 200 has

held in para 18 as under:-

18. Having regard to it all, it is manifest that the power of judicial review may not be exercised unless the administrative decision is illogical or suffers from procedural impropriety or it shocks the conscience of the court in the sense that it is in defiance of logic or moral standards but no standardised formula, universally applicable to all cases, can be evolved. Each

case has to be considered on its own facts, depending upon the authority that exercises the power, the source, the nature or scope of power and the indelible effects it generates in the operation of law or affects the individual or society. Though judicial restraint, albeit self-recognised, is the order of the day, yet an administrative decision or action which is based on wholly irrelevant considerations or material; or excludes from consideration the relevant material; or it is so absurd that no reasonable person could have arrived at it on the given material, may be struck down. In other words, when a court is satisfied that there is an abuse or misuse of power, and its jurisdiction is invoked, it is incumbent on the court to intervene. It is nevertheless, trite that the scope of judicial review is limited to the deficiency in the decision-making process and not the decision.

Further the Hon'ble Apex Court reiterating the same principle in the

case of U.P. v. Man Mohan Nath Sinha, (2009) 8 SCC 310 held as

under.

15. The legal position is well settled that the power of judicial review is not directed against the decision but is confined to the decision-making process. The court does not sit in judgment on merits of the decision. It is not open to the High Court to reappreciate and reappraise the evidence led before the inquiry officer and examine the findings recorded by the inquiry officer as a court of appeal and reach its own conclusions. In the instant case, the High Court fell into grave error in scanning the evidence as if it was a court of appeal. The approach of the High Court in consideration of the matter suffers from manifest error and, in our thoughtful consideration, the matter requires fresh consideration by the High Court in accordance with law. On this short ground, we send the matter back to the High Court.

18. This Court is now proceeding to examine as to whether on the facts of

the case there is any error on the decision making process warranting

interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

19. The admitted fact is that that writ petitioner is claiming that he has

answered all 198 questions. It is also admitted that in the recruitment

process there was also one of the condition of allotting negative marks in

case the answer of the particular question is found to be incorrect.

20. The specific case of the respondent that the answer sheet of the writ

petitioner was evaluated and on the principle of allotting negative mark he

has been awarded zero marks in paper 1 and other paper the marks 13.5

and 6 in paper 2 and paper 3 respectively.

21. The aforesaid ground has been tried to be justified for consideration

that there is no negative mark rather the answer sheet has been evaluated

on the basis of the reference of the UID but the UID No. of the writ

petitioner has wrongly been referred in the answer sheet and hence,

irregularity has been occurred due to the wrong reference of the UID No.

in the answer sheet of the petitioner.

22. The respondent has taken specific plea that the UID no. has been

called from all the candidates who have participated in the recruitment

process which was for the general purpose i.e. for proper identification of

all other candidates based upon the Adhar No.

23. The further specific ground has been taken that the evaluation is based

upon the score card having no nexus with the UID no. As such whatever

nos. have been allotted to the petitioner is on the basis of the performance

in the examination of the papers.

24. The contention therefore has been raised that there is no legality in the

recruitment process or even in evaluation of answer sheet.

25. The writ petitioner has not been able to substantiate the aforesaid

argument before the Tribunal that the purpose of taking the UID No. is for

the purpose of coding of the answer sheet.

26. The learned tribunal has considered the aforesaid fact and has

discarded the aforesaid contention by going through the internal

mechanism made by the recruiting agency for evaluation of marks and

come to the conclusive finding that there is no error in the process of

selection said to be cryptic due to error in the selection process.

27. This court has considered the contention of the learned counsel for the

petitioner based upon the aforesaid facts and is of the view and the view

which has been taken by the learned tribunal cannot be disagreed with.

28. As per the settled position that High Court in exercising the power

under 226 is to interfere with the process of selection if there is error in

decision making process but we have not found any evidence said to be

substantiated so as to come to the conclusion that there is any error in the

decision making process.

29. The law is equally settled that there cannot be any interference with

the process of selection since the same is not within the domain of the

Court exercising the power of judicial review to enter into the merit of

selection process, a task which is prerogative and is within the exclusive

domain of the selection committee subject to course to a caveat that if

there are proven allegations of malfeasance or violations of statutory

rules, only in such cases of inherent arbitrariness, can the Courts

intervene, as would appear from the judgment rendered in Tanvir Singh

Sodhi & Ors. Vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir & Ors [2023 SCC

OnLine SC 344], in particular paragraph 66 and 67, which reads as under:

66. Thus, the inexorable conclusion that can be drawn is that it is

not within the domain of the Courts, exercising the power of judicial review, to

enter into the merits of a selection process, a task which is the prerogative of and

is within the expert domain of a Selection Committee, subject of course to a

caveat that if there are proven allegations of malfeasance or violations of

statutory rules, only in such cases of inherent arbitrariness, can the Courts

intervene.

67. Thus, Courts while exercising the power of judicial review

cannot step into the shoes of the Selection Committee or assume an appellate role

to examine whether the marks awarded by the Selection Committee in the viva-

voce are excessive and not corresponding to their performance in such test. The

assessment and evaluation of the performance of candidates appearing before the

Selection Committee/Interview Board should be best left to the members of the

committee. In light of the position that a Court cannot sit in appeal against the

decision taken pursuant to a reasonably sound selection process, the following

grounds raised by the writ petitioners, which are based on an attack of subjective

criteria employed by the selection board/interview panel in assessing the

suitability of candidates, namely, (i) that the candidates who had done their post-

graduation had been awarded 10 marks and in the viva-voce, such PG candidates

had been granted either 18 marks or 20 marks out of 20. (ii) that although the

writ petitioners had performed exceptionally well in the interview, the authorities

had acted in an arbitrary manner while carrying out the selection process, would

not hold any water.

30. As such this Court is of the view that it is not a case where there is

any error in the process of selection, hence, applying the principle laid

down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Tanvir Singh Sodhi & Ors. Vs. State

of Jammu and Kashmir & Ors (supra), it is not a case on fact to interfere

with the process of selection.

31. This Court is exercising the power of Judicial Review in view of the

Judgment rendered in Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in

the case of L. Chandra Kumar Versus Union of India (Supra) whereby

and whereunder the power of Judicial Review has been conferred to this

Court against the order passed by the Tribunal in question under Article

226 of the Constitution of India.

32. The power of Judicial Review under the law is well settled. So far as

exercising the power of judicial review is concerned which can only be

exercised if there is any error apparent on the case of record or the

jurisdictional error has been pointed out or decision is contrary to the

statutory provision.

33. Herein, the issue of jurisdictional error decision has been taken in

violation of statutory provision is not the subject matter and is not the

issue rather issue is that error in the decision making process.

34. This Court based upon the discussion made herein above is of the

view that since there is no error in decision making process and hence the

order passed by the Tribunal cannot be said to suffer from any error on the

face of the said order.

35. Accordingly, and in view of the reasons assigned therein, this Court is

of the view that the writ petition lacks merit and the same is hereby

dismissed.

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Jharkhand High Court, at Ranchi Rajnish/-A.F.R.