Pradeep Kumar, Recruitment (Group ‘B’) & Others vs Union Of India & Others

L. Narasimha Reddy, J

For Combined Graduate Level Examination (CGLE) an advertisement was issued in February 2016. The applicants took part in the same. The selection involves conducting of examination at 3 levels i.e. Tier-I, II and III. Tier -I examination was held in August 2016 and the applicants were successful therein. Tier- II exam was held in November and December 2016. There again the applicants were qualified. Tier - III examination was conducted on 19.03.2017. Results thereof were declared on 05.08.2017. It is stated that the results of the applicants were not declared on the ground that they resorted to unfair means (UFM).

It is stated that one of the questions in Tier-III examination was in the form of writing a letter and at the end thereof the applicants have written their names in routine manner, but without any intention to reveal their identity. Through an order dated 05.12.2017, the respondents cancelled the candidature of the applicants. This OA is filed challenging the order dated 05.12.2017 and with a prayer to direct the respondents to declare the result and consider their candidature.

The applicants contend that the instructions issued to the candidates were not clear and were not made part of the instructions in the application form. They contend that nobody has complained about their performance and just on the basis of suspicion, their results were withheld and candidature was cancelled.

The applicants filed MA.1356/2020 with a prayer to take on record an order dated 05.08.2010 passed by the Staff Selection Commission. Through the said order the S.S.C. has decided to ignore the instances as to the identity of the candidates in respect of the Combined Higher Secondary Level 10+2 examination at Tire - II stage for the year 2018. They contend that the similar relief deserves to be extended to them.

On behalf of the respondents, detailed counter affidavit is filed. It is stated that the instructions to the candidates was specific to the effect that they shall not reveal their identity in the form of name, roll number or any other indication and despite that the applicants have written their names in their answer scripts. It is stated that the applicants have resorted to 'UFM' and accordingly their candidature was cancelled.

We heard Mr.K.Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the applicants and Mr.Gyanendra Singh, learned counsel for the respondents.

As indicated earlier, the selection process comprises of three examinations at three levels. The applicants have qualified in first two Tiers and their results in Tier - III were not declared. Through an order dated 05.12.2017 their candidature was cancelled on the ground that they have revealed their names.

In any examination, particularly the one in competitive examinations, the candidates are required to desist from revealing their identity. In the instant examination also, the respondents have incorporated a caution, which reads that "Candidates are strictly advised not to write any personal identity in the form of name, mobile number, roll number, etc, inside the answer sheet. Otherwise their answer sheet shall not be evaluated."

It is stated that one of the questions involved writing of a letter. The applicants were required to be careful, not reveal their names at the end of the letter. Whether intentionally or inadvertently, they have written their names. Naturally the clause got attracted and it was applied. Once the applicants did not dispute the factum of their writing the names in the answer scripts, the clause pertain to unfair means got attracted and in no way the Tribunal can interfere.

It is true that in respect of the Combined Higher Secondary Level (10+2) for the year 2018, the Staff Selection Commission has decided to give one time exemption to all the candidates of the CHSL examination Tire - II, 2018. The circumstances under which certain exemption was granted are not before us. The examination in which the applicants took part, was held in 2016 and it is in CGLE. We find it difficult to apply the decision contained in the letter dated 05.08.2020 to the applicants herein.

We do not find any merit in this OA and the same is dismissed accordingly. We, however, make it clear that in case any policy decision is taken in respect of CGLE - 2016, the applicants can also get the benefit. In such an event, it shall also be open to the applicants to seek remedy in accordance with the law with the respondents also.

There shall be no order as to costs.