Harish Kumar Vs Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB) And Other

L. Narasimha Reddy, J

Common questions of facts and law are involved in these O.As., hence they are disposed of through a common order.

The Government of NCT of Delhi intended to fill the posts in 65 categories of Teachers in the schools under its administration; one of such post is Physical Education Teacher, with Post Code No.90/17. Advertisement No.04/17 was issued in this behalf on 20.12.2017. The process involved conducting of a written test, with multiple choices. All the applicants herein offered their candidature to the said post. The examination was conducted on 16.09.2018. The provisional key answer was published on 20.09.2018 and objections were invited. The objections were referred to body of experts and thereafter final key was published on 09.01.2019.

The applicants contend that the final key published on 09.01.2019 is defective insofar as it relates to question Nos.44, 119, 182, 183 & 200. They submitted that the answer provided in the final key does not accord with the material in the prescribed text books. It is also stated that though the objection was submitted with relevant material, it was not considered at all and the final key was published with wrong answers, in respect of those questions. The objections raised by the applicant were also rejected through a communication dated 09.01.2019.

This O.A. is filed with a prayer to set aside the communication dated 09.01.2019, and the final key, insofar as it relates to the questions referred to above.

Since these matters involve appointment of about 900 Teachers in various schools, we required the learned counsel for respondents to obtain instructions, so that the O.As. can be disposed of early.

We heard Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, learned counsel for applicants and Mr. Anuj Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for respondents at length.

Normally in matters of this nature, where the final key is published after inviting objections, the Tribunal is reluctant to interfere. What prompted us to examine these matters in some detail is that in respect of question No.119, an inadvertent spelling mistake that has crept into these answers was also not noticed by the team of experts. The question and the multiple answers read as under:-

"119. Identify which of the following terms does not describe a type of wound?

(A) Infused

(B) Incised

(C) Confused

(D) Puncture"

The answer (c) was supposed to be „contused‟ and instead the word „confused‟ was written. In the context of wound, the question of confusion does not arise. If at all anything, it should be treated as an inappropriate answer. According to final key, the correct answer is option (a), i.e., „infused‟.

An attempt is made by the applicants to demonstrate that answers to some other questions, as contained in the key, are not correct, and reference is made to text books. Not being the experts in the subject, we do not intend to go into these matters. The respondents have already expressed their willingness to refer the aforesaid five questions, i.e., question Nos.44, 119, 182, 183 & 200, to a body of experts, so that the apprehension or feeling of injustice in the minds of the applicants does not persist.

It is brought to our notice that the appointments in question are being monitored by Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in Contempt Case No.1133/2016, and that the case is scheduled to be listed on 29.03.2019.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the cases, we dispose of these O.As. by directing that:

a) the respondents shall take immediate steps to refer the answers in the final key in respect of question Nos. 44, 119, 182, 183 & 200, for the examination conducted for selection to the post of Physical Education Teacher with Post Code No.90/17 to experts forthwith, with a specific direction that a report or opinion in this behalf shall be furnished, within one week,

b) further steps in the process of selection shall be taken soon after the opinion is obtained, as indicated above.

c) under no circumstances, the steps indicated in this order shall be treated or construed as an impediment for implementation of the directions issued by the High Court.

Order dasti.

There shall be no order as to costs.