Punjab-Haryana High Court
Anshuman Jaspal vs Central Administrative Tribunal And ... on 24 September, 2024
Author: Sudeepti Sharma
Bench: Sureshwar Thakur, Sudeepti Sharma
CWP-3943-2018
2018 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
-.-
CWP
CWP-3943-2018 (O&M)
Reserved on 04.09.2024
Pronounced on : 24.09.2024
Anshuman Jaspal ......Petitioner
Vs.
Central Administrative Tribunal and Others ......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESHWAR THAKUR
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA
Present: Mr. A.S.Samra, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Aman Pal,
Pal, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 to 4.
----
SUDEEPTI SHARMA J.
The petitioner in the present writ petition is asking for directions to
the respondents to consider and appoint him as Junior Engineer. He is further
asking for quashing of order dated 29.11.2017 passed by learned Central
Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh
Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh, whereby the Original
Application
pplication filed by the petitioner has been dismissed. He is further asking for
setting aside an advertisement dated 29.06.2015 to the extent of providing
qualifying marks for each test as 45% i.e. in Paper
Paper-1 (Civil
ivil Engineering) and Paper
-II
II (Mental Ability, Computer Aptitude and English) since imposing condition of
qualifying marks of 45% has no rationality. He is further asking for quashing of
the result to the extent of his non-selection
non selection vide notification da
dated
ted 10.10.2016. He
is further asking for quashing of appointment of respondent Nos. 6 to 12.
CWP-3943-2018
2018 (O&M) -2-
2. The brief facts as stated in the petition are as under:
under:-
i) The petitioner applied in response to the advertisement dated
29.06.2015 for filling up the post of 24 Junior Engineer (Civil) in the
Public Health Wing, U.T.Chandigarh.
ii) He appeared in the written test on 17.07.2016.
iii) His case in the original application is that answer key
keys to the
written test was uploaded on the website by the respondents w
with
ith a
public notice inviting objections from tthe
he candidates to the answer
key and he submitted his objections through ee-mail.
keys
iv) His further contention is that question No.5 was of a higher
level than can be expected from a candidate of Civil Engineer.
Question No.6 is erroneous and does not have the possibility of a
correct answer in the answer options provided. Question No.17 is
incorrect as multiple answers are possible. The standard of question
of question No.21 is one requiring higher degrees of kn
knowledge
owledge in the
field of Computer Science and Engineering. He relied upon Oxford
English Dictionary to analyse the answer relating to question No.15
stating that "Senility and Dotage" have the same meaning.
v) Further, his case is that he secured 89 out of 100 marks in
Paper 1 (Civil Engineering) and 21 marks out of 49 in Paper
Paper-1 Paper-II.
II. He
secured 110 marks in aggregate in both the papers. As against the
requirement of securing 45% marks, the candidate should have
secured 22.05% i.e. 22 (rounded off).
CWP-3943-2018
2018 (O&M) -3-
vi) Hiss case is that he is short by one mark as he has secured 21
marks in Paper-II
Paper II after cancellation of question No.23 by the
respondents for all those who appeared in the examination.
vii) Further that if he be given one grace mark for the question
which was
wa cancelled in Paper-II,
II, he would make the rank for selection
as he would secure 22 marks.
viii) His case is that instead of cancelling question No.23, grace
marks should have been awarded for this question.
3. Learned Tribunal after hearing both the parties
ties dismissed the Original
Application
pplication filed by the petitioner vide order dated 29.11.2017. Relevant portion
of the same is reproduced hereunder:-
hereunder:
"11. All examinees including the applicant have treated equally by
ignoring the one disputed question and no person has been given any
advantage. The applicant's contention that his answer was correct
and hence he should be awarded marks in order to make him qualify
in the examination when the same benefit is denied to others, is not
acceptable. It is for the
the respondents to set the question paper, and
also draw up the answer from the multiple choices provided.
Respondents have published the answer key, called for response from
the candidates, taken note of the same and made corrections wherever
considered necessary.
necessary. It is not a case as if the persons, who appeared
and attempted the examination, should be allowed the last word on
what is to be included or excluded, or dictate the correctness of the
answers. In such a situation, normally most persons who appl
applyy for the
CWP-3943-2018
2018 (O&M) -4-
post are prone to carry the view that his answer is correct and he
should be assigned the right to be selected. It is not for the applicants
to demand that their own point of view be treated as final and
selection be made accordingly. Somewhere there is need to draw line
on the system of award of marks in an examination or the exercise
would turn into an endless process of debate on what is right and what
is wrong or the entitlement of marks. Applicant's prayer is that the
said question which was
was treated by the respondent, as ignored should
be treated as correct in his case as his answer was correct and marks
be awarded accordingly. This would violate the right to equality as he
is expecting a treatment different from others similarly placed, who
w
also took the examination with applicant. This is not a case where the
answer key was kept undisclosed or under wrap. It was openly
published for all to see and offer suggestions. But the recruiting body
and the examiner would reserve the right to ha
have
ve the final say in the
matter of answers, failing which this would be an endless exercise.
12. The Tribunal while exercising the power of judicial
review should not enter into findings of facts which it may not possess
the expertise. This case, it is left to respondents who are experts in the
matter to take a final decision. It is not for the applicant and other
similarly placed to dictate the manner in which they will be evaluated
for the examination. The Apex Court has in a catena of decisions held
that, judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of
the manner in which the decision was made. Judicial review of
administrative
administrative action is intended to prevent arbitrariness,
CWP-3943-2018
2018 (O&M) -5-
irrationality, unreasonableness, bias and malafide. None of the above
is attracted in this matter. Judicial review is not an appeal from a
decision, but a review of the manner in which the decision is made. It
would be erroneous to think that courts sit in judgment not only on the
correctness of the decision making process, but also on the
correctness of the decision itself. Power of judicial review is meant to
ensure that the individual receives fair treatment, which in this case
has been met vis-à-vis,
vis vis, the applicant and all others similarly placed.
In OA No.180/00133/2014 titled Eiros K.A Vs. BSNL and other
connected OAs, the Tribunal had rightly observed as follows:
follows:-
" We are not here to question the erudition, knowledge or
the expertise of the experts nor are we to question the
competency of such experts. There were no large scale
discontentment among the candidates. There was no
unfairness or unreasonableness also. Only 5 among the
candidates (nearly ten thousand) have come forward with the
allegation as stated in these O.As. There is no illegality or
unfairness in the conduct of the selection process nor is there
any malafides or favouritism. The whole selection process
involving nearly ten thousand candidates cannot be upset
because of such allegations made by 5 among them. We find no
reason to interfere with the selection process undertaken by the
respondents."
13. The OA lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.
CWP-3943-2018
2018 (O&M) -6-
SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED
LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends as under:-
(i) That
hat the original application filed by the petitioner has been dismissed
without appreciating the facts on record.
(ii) That
hat he is amongst the toppers in written test Paper-II and he secured
110 marks,
marks whereas, other selected candidates have secured 109
marks.
(iii) That
hat he secured 22 marks out of 50 in Paper
Paper-II
II and falls in eligibility
list because 45% of 50 comes to 22.5 and .5 mark cannot be secured
as all the questions were of one mark each.
(iv) That
hat he alongwith other candidates should be granted one mark as
grace mark for cancellation of one question in Paper
Paper-II.
5. Per contra,
contra, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 contends that
all the candidates who appeared in the exam
examination were given uniformity of
treatment since they were assessed by the answer key
keys,, which was cleared by two
committees.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole
record.
7. A perusal of the record shows that the mode of selection is clearly laid
down in the advertisement and the petitioner after participating in the selection
process cannot challenge the portion of advertisement with regard to securing of
total 45% of marks.
CWP-3943-2018
2018 (O&M) -7-
8. We do not find any illegality in the selection process since the answer
key was uploaded and the objections raised by all the candidates were dealt with
by the respondents.
9. A perusal of the result, which was called by this Court, shows that the
petitioner secured 89 marks
mar in Paper-II and 21 marks in Paper
Paper-II.
II. So far as Paper-I
Paper
is concerned, he has secured more than the cut-off
cut off marks i.e 44 marks and so far as
Paper-II
II is concerned,
concerned he has secured 21 marks, whereas, cut-off is of 22 marks.
10. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in the case of the
petitioner. The learned Tribunal has rightly dismissed the Original Application
ication
filed by the petitioner, vide order dated 29.11.2017 by passing a well reasoned
order. Therefore, the present writ petition is dismissed being devoid of any merit.
11. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
(SURESHWAR
SURESHWAR THAKUR)
THAKUR (SUDEEPTI
SUDEEPTI SHARMA
SHARMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
September 24,, 2024
tripti
Whether speaking/reasoned: Speaking
Whether reportable: Yes / No
