Sunday, September 8, 2024
Latest:
delhihighcourt

NAVEEN KUMAR vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Information

$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Date of Decision:-16.05.2024.

+ W.P.(C) 7071/2024 & CM APPL. 29471/2024 -Ex. (record)., CM APPL. 29472/2024 -Ex.
NAVEEN KUMAR ….. Petitioner
Through: Mr.Manish Kumar with Ms.Gunjan Sharma, Advs.

versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ….. Respondent
Through: Mr.Vinay Yadav with Mr.R.Venkat Prabhat, Advs & Mr.Vedansh Anand, GP for R-1.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE

REKHA PALLI, J(ORAL)

1. The present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeks to assail the order dated 10.11.2023 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal(the Tribunal) in O.A.1047/2016 as also order dated 05.01.2024 whereby his review petition was dismissed. Vide the impugned order, the learned Tribunal has rejected the petitioner’s/ applicant’s prayer for issuance of directions to the respondents/ UOI to properly evaluate each part of the answer sheet of Paper III for the Post Graduate Teacher(PGT)(Computer Science) Examination conducted by Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti in terms of the advertisement issued in December, 2008.
2. As per the brief factual matrix of the case as emerging from the record, upon an advertisement being issued on 27.12.2008 by the respondent/UOI for inviting applications to the post of PGT(Computer Science), the petitioner being eligible for the said post, applied to the Navodya Vidyalaya Samiti and appeared in the examination conducted by the respondent on 09.08.2009. After succeeding in the written examination, the petitioner participated in the interview conducted at Secunderabad (Andhra Pradesh) on 11.01.2010. The respondent, vide its letter dated 05.11.2012, supplied the final merit list of the recruitment to the post of PGT (Computer Science) in response to the application dated 30.09.2012 under the RTI Act-2005, wherein the petitioner’s name appeared at SL No. 350. Upon the perusal of the aforementioned merit list, it was evident that the petitioner secured 30/60 in Paper-I, 29/40 in Paper-II and 42/80 in Paper-III, and only 08/20 in the Open Interview, totalling 109/200 in the General Category. Consequently, the petitioner was declared unsuccessful, whereas the last successful candidate in the general category obtained 116.5 marks.
3. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid marking in Paper-III, the petitioner sought information about the Model Answer of Paper-III from the respondent vide letter dated 13.02.2013. However, the respondent did not supply any such information and instead provided vide their letter dated 14.03.2013 informed him that “No such record is in possession of the Samiti” because the examination was conducted by an outside agency. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner filed O.A. 1047/2016 before the learned Tribunal.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the only grievance of the petitioner is that even though he has been awarded collective marks in the five questions, i.e. question nos.1, 4, 5, 6 and 7 attempted by him, he has not been awarded separate marks for each part of those questions. He, therefore, prays that the impugned order be set aside and the respondent be directed to carry out the said exercise.
5. Even though this argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner appears to be attractive on the first blush, however, upon examining the marking scheme adopted by the respondent, which is a part of the answer-sheet itself, it is evident that the respondent has from the very beginning awarded composite marks for each question. For the sake of clarity, the relevant extract of the answer-book is reproduced hereinbelow:-

6. A perusal of the aforesaid reveals that the respondent had even before the commencement of the examination decided that for each question, marks will be awarded compositely and not separately for each of the sub-part(s) of the question. If that be so, we fail to appreciate as to how the Court can interfere with the marking scheme adopted by the respondent, especially, since it is evident that the said scheme has been applied uniformly to all other candidates.
7. We are of the view, that even if separate marks had been allocated for the sub part(s) (a) and (b) of the question, once the scheme of marking indicated that marks were required to be awarded compositely as per the table extracted hereinabove, the respondent cannot at this belated stage be directed to award separate marks to the petitioner in each part of the question.
8. Even otherwise, the respondent was the best judge for deciding the procedure to be followed and the manner of giving marks. It is trite law that neither the procedure to be followed nor the awarding of marks is within the domain of the Court. There is absolutely no reason for this Court to interfere with such decisions/procedure adopted by the respondent, much less by way of the present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
9. We, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. The writ petition, along with pending applications, being meritless is, accordingly, dismissed.

(REKHA PALLI)
JUDGE

(SAURABH BANERJEE)
JUDGE
MAY 16, 2024/sr

W.P.(C) 7071/2024 Page 4 of 4