Rajesh Kumar Jha vs Union Of India And Ors

We have heard Mr.Ajesh Luthra, counsel for applicant and Mrs. Sumedha Sharma, counsel for respondents, perused the pleadings and all the documents produced by both the parties.

In this OA, the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:

"a) Quash and set aside the impugned action of the respondents placing the applicant in the reject list, placed at Annexure A/1 and

b) Direct the respondents to further consider and appoint the applicant to the post in accordance with his merit position and post/status preference.

c) Accord all consequential benefits including seniority and monetary benefits.

d) Award costs of the proceedings; and

e) Pass any order/relief/direction(s) as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the interests of justice in favour of the applicant."

The relevant facts of the case are that the applicant applied against the advertisement issued by the respondents for Combined Graduate Level Examination (CGLE) of 2016. The applicant appeared and secured 393 marks in all the three tier-1, tier-II and tier-III examination. But when the final result was declared applicant was shown as rejected on grounds of Using Unfair Means (UFM) by the rejection list dated 10.08.2017. Aggrieved by the same, the applicant filed the present OA praying for the above stated reliefs. Through RTI application, he came to know that he has written his name at the end of the letter require to be written in response to a particular question in the answer book and he averred that it was only because of the anxiety and stress of examination he committed that mistake without having any intention of gaining any undue advantage by any unfair means. The counsel for the applicant vehemently and strenuously contended that such mistakes are very minor in nature and the respondents having taken hyper technical view of the same should not have rejected the candidature of the applicant who is otherwise meritorious. In support of his contention, the counsel for the applicant relied upon the law laid down by the various High Courts in the following cases:

(1) Rohit Kumar Vs. Union of India and Anr (CWP No. 13720/2012- High Court of Punjab and Haryana).

(2) Anil Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors (S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 657/2012- High Court of Rajasthan)

(3) Subhanta Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 11269/2011- High Court of Rajasthan)

(4) Writ Petition No. 1004/2012 (Neeraj Kumar's case)

(5) Ravindra Malik Vs. Staff Selection Commission & Ors (OA 2063/2012-PB)

(6) Arvind Kumar Kajla Vs. Union of India & Ors (OA 1802/2012-PB)

The counsel for the respondents equally vehemently and strenuously contended that the candidates were given clear cut instructions in the first page of the answer book itself, a copy of which was produced as Annexure R-1 to the effect that the personal identity of name, roll no, mobile no, address etc should not be written inside the answer book and in case of violation of the said condition the answer book would not be evaluated and that about thirty six thousands candidates appeared in the examination and the said instruction was uniformly applied to all the candidates and about five hundred candidates were disqualified for such unfair means. That there is no unreasonableness or arbitrariness in evolving such a uniform standard in holding examination and there is no question of hostile discrimination meted out to the applicant, as such there is no merit in the OA. The relevant averments made by the respondents in counter affidavit are as under:

"6. That the respondents would also submit that instructions were inscribed on the Answer Book issued to each candidate who appeared for the Tier-III examination. A sample copy of the first page of the Answer Book is annexed as Annexure-R/1. The instructions to the candidates appearing in the Tier-III examination are as follows:

Answer-Books not bearing candidates' Name, Ticket No. Roll No. and Signature wherever required will not be evaluated and such candidates would be awarded "Zero" marks.

The candidates will be awarded "Zero Marks" if they have not filled in the Language in the box or if there is a mismatch in the Language filled in the box and the Language in which question paper is attempted.

Candidates are strictly advised not to write any personal identity e.g., Name, Roll No., Mobile No. Address etc. inside the Answer Book. Otherwise their Answer Book SHALL NOT be evaluated.

Answer Parts running in more than 10% of the prescribed word limit will not be evaluated.

That the answering Respondent would like to submit that the above instructions clearly inscribed in the Question and Answer Booklets were strictly and meticulously observed by most of the candidates who appeared in the said examination.

That out of 35,906 candidates who became eligible for appearing in Tier-III Examination, 33053 appeared in Tier-III. Out of this, only 484 candidates were found to have violated the instructions mentioned above.

That the Applicant of this OA, who is a candidate in the Tier-III Examination of CGLE-2016, violated the instructions mentioned above and was rejected from selection process of the Examination. As mentioned at page-4 of the OA that Candidature of this Applicant was rejected on the ground 'UFM-unfair means. All the candidates were strictly advised not to write any personal identity, e.g. name, roll no. mobile no., address, etc. inside the Answer Sheet. Otherwise their Answer Sheets SHALL NOT be evaluated."

In support of their contention, the respondents have relied upon the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the following judgments:

(1) Karnataka Public Service Commission and others Vs. B.M.Vijaya Shankar and others (JT 1992(4) 348)

(2) Bedanga Talukdar Vs. Saifudaullah Khan (2011) 12 SCC 85)

(3) Vijendra Kumar Verma Vs. Public Service Commission, Uttarkhand (2011) 1 SCC 150)

(4) K.Manjusree Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Another (2008) 3 SCC 512).

(5) Dr.M.Vennila Vs Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (2006 LAB I.C. 2875-Punjab High Court)

(6) Indu Gupta Vs. Director Sports Punjab, Chandigarh (AIR 1999 P&H (FB)-Punjab & Haryana High Court)

(7) Secretary, T.N.Public Service Commission Vs. A.B.Natarajan (2014) 14 SCC 95)

The counsel for the respondents specifically brought to our notice the following observation made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Karnataka Public Service Commission and Ors. Etc. Vs. B.M.Vijaya Shankar and Ors (JT 1992(4) 348).

"Does the rule of natural justice has no exception ? Is denial of opportunity of hearing, in every circumstance, arbitrary? The State of Karnataka and the Public Service Commission, through these appeals, seek answer to these questions. They are aggrieved by directions, issued by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, to get the answer books of candidates evaluated who in the competitive examinations conducted by the commission for the State Civil Service for categories `A' and `B' post, were guilty of writing their roll numbers not only on the front page of the answer books, in the space provided for it, but even at other places in disregard of instructions issued by the Commission. Basis for the direction was failure of the Commission to afford any opportunity to the candidates to explain their bonafide and innocence therefore it was arbitrary and it entailed grave consequences for those who were aspirants for entering into public service.

Power and authority of the Commission to hold examinations, regulate its working and functioning take action against erring candidates guilty of misconduct are all provided for by the rules and instructions issued in exercise of power conferred by the Statutes. The claim of the candidates that they did not vest any right in the Commission to take such action was negatived by the tribunal. But it faulted in inferring that no penalty was provided for breach of instructions requiring a candidate not to write his roll number inside the answer book. Relevant clause (1) of the Instructions to Candidates is extracted below:

"Before commencing your answers please write your register number and other particulars in the space provided above. Do not write your name or register number or sign any where in the answer book or on any loose sheets, such as precis sheets, maps, graph papers, etc.'

It is not disputed and it was found, even by the tribunal that it was printed on the first page of every, answer book. Its observance was mandatory and its disregard was punishable is clear from instruction (xii) and (xiii) of General Instructions to the candidates which are extracted below:

"(xii) The candidates must abide by such instructions as may be specified on the cover of the answer book or any further instructions which may be given by the Supervisor/Invigilator of the Examination.

(xiii) If the candidates fail to do so or indulge in disorderly or improper conduct, they will render themselves liable to expulsion from examination and or such other punishment as the Commission may deem fit to impose."

Is the expression, 'such other punishment as the commission may deem fit to impose' vague and thus arbitrary? We do not think so. Read with clause (xii) it presents no difficulty. It provides action for breach of that which is, clearly, specified. It cannot be characterised as vague. And then any capricious exercise of power can always be assailed. More important than this is that provisions attempting to infuse discipline in competitive to be conducted by the Commission cannot be construed with same yardstick as a provision in penal statutes. Moreover the Commission did not impose any penalty on the candidates. Their examination was not cancelled nor they were debarred from taking any examination conducted by the Commission for that year or any year, in future. Their marks in papers, other than those in which they were found to have acted in disregard of instructions were declared. The only action taken was that those answer books in which roll numbers had been written inside were not subjected to evaluation. In our opinion there was nothing, basically, wrong in it. The Commission did not treat it as misconduct. The action could not be termed as arbitrary. Nor it was abuse of power which could be corrected by judicial review

Such instructions are issued to ensure fairness in the examination. In the fast deteriorating standards of honesty and morality in the society the insistence by the Commission that no attempt should be made of identification of the candidate by writing his roll number anywhere is in the larger public interest. It is well known that the first page of the answer book on which roll number is written is removed and a fictitious code number is provided to rule out any effort of any approach to the examiner. Not that a candidate who has written his roll number would have approached the examiner. He may have committed a bonafide mistake. But that is not material. What was attempted to be achieved by the instruction was to minimise any possibility or chance of any abuse. Larger public interest demands of observance of instruction rather than its breach.....".

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case narrated above the judgments referred to by the counsel for the applicant do not help the applicant and in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to by the counsel for respondents, we are of the view that there is no unreasonableness or discrimination meted out to the applicant.

Accordingly, OA is dismissed. No order as to costs.