Amit Kumar vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited

Praveen Mahajan, Member (A)

The applicant  in the  OA  is aggrieved by the  impugned answer key issued by the respondents towards the written exam conducted by the respondents to fill up various posts of Junior Engineers (JE). The grievance of the applicant is that the respondents have taken wrong answers as correct in at least two of  the  questions  (specifically  mentioned)  in  the  OA.  This  has resulted in award of less marks to the applicant than his entitlement, coupled with negative marking, which has further prejudiced the applicant. He has, therefore, prayed that the final answer key of the respondents be set aside to the extent indicated in his OA.

Per contra, the respondents aver that the applicant secured only 106.25 marks whereas the cut off in the OBC category was 106. 75 marks. The respondents state that after the publication of Provisional Answer Key, as per SOP (Standard Operating Procedure) queries were invited till 28.10.2016 and the Expert Committee constituted for the purpose, considered the same and gave its report on 09.11.2016. The Final Result was declared on 22.11.2016 along with final Answer Key. The respondents aver that the applicant has challenged the answer key after the deadline of 28.10.2016 which cannot be entertained at this belated stage and the decision of the Expert Committee is final as per the SOP Key. In support, the respondents have relied upon the judgment of the Tribunal in OA No.223/2017 titled Ratnesh Kumar & Others Vs. BSNL issued on 09.03.2017.

During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Ajesh Luthra emphasized that the applicant has wrongly been awarded 106.25 marks, and that he is entitled to award of 1 credit mark each for his correct answers which have not been considered/awarded by the respondents, treating his correct answers as incorrect due to their wrong answer key. He argued that if the respondents give him the correct marks for the two questions and also deduct the negative marking, the applicant‟s score will be 108.75 which would be much higher than the last selected candidate. Shri Luthra stated that the applicant had submitted his objections through email on 26.10.2016 which was within the time limit since the queries were invited/valid till 28.10.2016. He, therefore, urged that the respondents be directed to consider the queries raised by the applicant to the answer key of Junior Engineer Exam, 2016, and award marks to the applicant accordingly so that his marks (and resultantly, the merit) can be computed correctly.

Learned counsel for respondents Shri Nalin Tripathi stated that the final result was declared on 22.11.2016 along with final answer key. He stated that after publication of the Provisional Answer Key, as per SOP (Standard Operating Procedure) queries were invited till 28.10.2016. Based on the objections received by the participants, the Expert Committee gave its report on 09.11.2016. He contended that the applicant did not send his queries on time - hence to re-open this issue would tantamount to opening a pandora‟s box, since the selection process has already been finalised.

We have gone through the facts and considered the rival contentions of both sides.

During the hearing, the learned counsel for the applicant, drew our attention to a copy of the email dated 26.10.2016 (P-1) sent by the applicant to the respondents. The email has two attachments pertaining to filled proforma with proof attachments "I Amit Kumar sending my filled proforma (total 2 attachments) regarding queries about answer key of JE exam 2016". The respondents have not commented on the email dated 26.10.2016 filed by the applicant (alongwith attachments) as proof of having raised the queries prior to 28.10.2016. Thus the contention of the respondents that query was not sent on time or received after the stipulated date i.e. 28.10.2016 stands belied by this e-mail.

We find that in the judgment relied upon by the respondents, (Ratnesh Kumar & Ors. Vs. BSNL) the facts of the said case are distinguishable from those of the present one. The citations relied upon and discussed in the aforementioned OA are largely those where the candidates challenged the selection, subsequent to the declaration of the result. In the instant case, the applicant questioned the provisional answer key before the final result was declared.

In view of the proof placed on record by the applicant showing that he sent the queries to the respondents - well within time, we are of the view that the averments of the applicant with regard to the wrong answer key, published by the respondents, cannot be just brushed away summarily. The respondents, in our view, erred in not taking cognizance of the same before declaring the result. The respondents are duty bound to rectify an error, though inadvertent, to ensure that credibility of the entire process is not lost. Undoubtedly the selection process has attained finality but if even one of the applicant‟s is denied his rightful claim it would be a travesty of justice.

In view of the aforementioned facts, we allow the OA. The respondents are directed to consider the objections raised by the applicant and process his case accordingly. In case the claim of the applicant is found to be correct, the respondents must rectify the error, if any, and proceed accordingly, as per law.