Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

OA No. 1802/2012

Attorney(S)

(Through Shri J.S Mann, Advocate)
(Through Shri S.M Arif, Advocate)

Judges

V. Ajay Kumar, Member (J)
P.K Basu, Member (A)

Acts

SECTION 2 ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS ACT 1985

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Structured Summary of the Tribunal Opinion

Factual and Procedural Background

The applicant appeared in the recruitment examinations held on 28.08.2011 for multiple posts including Sub Inspector in CISF (G category) and Intelligence Officer (IO) in the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB). He had chosen SI in CISF as his first preference and IO in NCB as his second preference. The exam rules differentiated the selection processes: for the CISF post (G category) candidates were called for Physical Endurance Test (PET) and Medical on the basis of Paper I cut-off marks, whereas for IO in NCB candidates were required to clear both Paper I and Paper II before being called for PET/Medical.

Based on Paper I results the applicant was called for PET and Medical (for CISF) on 17–18.10.2011 but did not appear because he believed he was overage for that post (DOB 19.08.1985; stated age 25 years 10 months as on 24.06.2011). He claimed that for the IO (NCB) post he scored 123.5 marks in Paper I and 162.5 in Paper II (total 286) exceeding the cut-off, but he was not called for PET/Medical for IO because his Paper II was shown as awarded "zero" marks. The applicant filed the original application (OA) seeking evaluation of his Paper II, directions to process his candidature, reasons for rejection, and declaration that the letter dated 7.03.2012 awarding him "zero" marks was perverse/arbitrary.

The respondents replied disputing the claim and contended that rules had been followed and the OA should be dismissed.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain the OA seeking relief in respect of a post in the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB), having regard to the exclusion in Section 2(a) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 for armed forces.
Whether the applicant is entitled to relief (evaluation of Part II answer sheet and further processing) where Paper II was awarded "zero" marks on account of non-coding of the roll number on the OMR/answer sheet (despite roll number being written correctly), and whether such a trivial error justifies denial of candidature.

Arguments of the Parties

Applicant's Arguments

The applicant asserted that he had entered his roll number correctly in two places but forgot to code it; due to this trivial omission he was awarded "zero" marks in Paper II and thus disqualified from consideration for IO in NCB.
Based on his own calculation the applicant submitted he should have obtained 123.5 marks in Paper I and 162.5 in Paper II (total 286), which is above the cut-off (stated in the OA as 262.5), and therefore he should have been called for further stages.
He relied on a prior order of the Tribunal in OA 740/2013 (decided 8.08.2013) where a trivial mistake (not indicating date of a postal order) was held not to justify cancellation of candidature, to argue for leniency.
The applicant contended that there was no intention to mislead and that the omission was a minor mistake made under stress while taking the examination.

Respondents' Arguments

The respondents maintained that the examination rules and instructions were followed and that the OA should be dismissed.
They stated that the applicant scored 126 marks in Paper I but was awarded "zero" in Paper II for failing to code his roll number on the OMR sheet, and therefore his name did not appear in the result list for IO in NCB.
They relied on explicit instructions printed in the examination materials and answer sheet (stating that un-coded or incorrectly coded sheets would be awarded "zero" marks) to justify the penalty.
The respondents produced precedents/orders where similar coding errors resulted in dismissal of claims (listed in the reply) and cited an SSC letter dated 7.03.2012 recording that 790 candidates in Paper II were rejected for various such discrepancies, arguing there was no singling out or discrimination.
They also advanced a jurisdictional objection that services in question belong to armed forces and that Section 2(a) of the Administrative Tribunals Act excludes Tribunal jurisdiction (this was contested by the applicant and rejected by the Tribunal).

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Order dated 4.11.2011 in OA 3751/2011	Dismissal where applicant wrongly coded roll number on front page of answer sheet.	Cited by respondents to show that wrong coding has earlier led to dismissal; the Tribunal noted it as one of several decisions taking a strict view.
Order dated 1.10.2012 of the Delhi High Court in WP No.5375/2012	Addressed non-coding of Test Form Number; noted invigilator's negligence in not verifying particulars.	Respondents relied on it though the Tribunal observed that facts were not identical; the order was noted as acknowledging invigilator negligence in some circumstances.
Order dated 29.11.2012 in OA 3781/2012	Dismissal where applicant did not fill Test Form Number in relevant column.	Cited by respondents as authority for denying relief when coding/filling deficiencies exist; the Tribunal recorded it as part of the body of decisions taking a strict approach.
Order dated 21.12.2012 in OAs No.4193 and 4194/2012	Dismissal in cases of wrong coding of Ticket Number (relied upon earlier orders).	Used by respondents to show consistent administrative practice; Tribunal noted these as part of the divergent line of authorities.
Order dated 26.03.2012 in OA 3119/2011	Dismissal for wrong coding of Ticket Number.	Recorded by the Tribunal as another example where strict compliance was enforced; not treated as identical but part of the precedential context.
Commissioner of Police and others Vs. Sandeep Kumar, (2011) 4 SCC 644	Principle that minor indiscretions by youth may be condoned; youth may be shown leniency rather than branded for life.	The Tribunal expressly relied on this Supreme Court authority to justify a lenient approach toward a minor, non-deliberate omission by a youthful candidate and to support granting relief in the present factual matrix.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Tribunal proceeded in stages:

Jurisdiction: The respondents' preliminary objection under Section 2(a) of the Administrative Tribunals Act (that the services belong to the armed forces) was considered. The Tribunal accepted the applicant's contention that IO in NCB are not armed forces and fall under the Ministry of Home Affairs; therefore the Tribunal's jurisdiction was not ousted.
Factual determination on coding: The Tribunal examined the answer sheet and Annexure R-4 and found that the applicant had entered his roll number correctly but had failed to code it, although he had coded the ticket number. The consequence under the rules was that Paper II had been awarded "zero" marks for incorrect/absent coding.
Assessment of severity and culpability: The Tribunal recognized that while the instructions on the answer sheet clearly warned that incorrectly coded particulars would attract "zero" marks, minor errors can occur due to stress while taking examinations. It accepted that there was no intention by the applicant to mislead, and that the mistake was a trivial omission rather than deliberate concealment. The Tribunal observed that invigilators might have been more alert and could possibly have remedied the mistake at the time.
Precedential balance: The Tribunal noted that prior decisions presented two divergent approaches—some authorities enforced the coding rules strictly and dismissed similar claims, while others (and material factual differences) warranted a different approach. The Tribunal considered the Supreme Court's guidance in Commissioner of Police v. Sandeep Kumar about condoning minor indiscretions by youth, and found it instructive.
Conclusion on relief: Applying the above analysis, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant's omission was a minor mistake deserving of leniency in the circumstances. The Tribunal found merit in the OA and directed that Part II of the applicant's answer sheet should be evaluated and marked. The Tribunal imposed a remedial procedure and timeline (evaluation and consequent processing to be completed within two months from receipt of a copy of the order).

Holding and Implications

Core Ruling: The Tribunal found merit in the OA and directed that Part II of the applicant's answer sheet be evaluated and marks accorded; if, after evaluation, the applicant's total marks exceed the cut-off, he is to be invited for PET/Medical/Interview and, if he qualifies, appointed as Intelligence Officer in NCB. The evaluation and processing were ordered to be completed within two months from receipt of the order.

Implications:

Direct effect: The respondents are ordered to evaluate the applicant's Paper II and, depending on the marks obtained, to process his candidature for PET/Medical/Interview and potential appointment. This is an operative direction that affects the parties directly.
Precedential effect: The Tribunal explicitly noted divergent views in prior cases and relied upon the Supreme Court's principle favoring leniency for minor youthful indiscretions; however, the opinion is fact-specific. The Tribunal did not purport to lay down a broad new rule displacing the established administrative instruction that incorrectly coded sheets may be awarded zero. It applied equitable considerations to the present facts rather than overruling the strict rule generally.
Timeframe: The respondents must complete the evaluation and any consequent procedural steps within two months from receipt of a copy of the Tribunal's order.

Bench: (P.K. Basu) Member (A) and (V. Ajay Kumar) Member (J).

Show full summary ...

Arvind Kumar Kajla v. Union Of India

Mr. P.K. Basu, Member (A): The applicant appeared for the examination for recruitment of Sub Inspector in Central Police Organization (`CPO for short), Assistant Sub Inspector in Central Industrial Security Force (`CISF for short) and Intelligence Officer in NCB, 2011. The written examination for this was held on 28.08.2011. The applicant had opted as his first preference for `G category i.e. SI in CISF and as second preference, the post of Intelligence Officer in NCB. As per the notice of the examination, the candidates applying for `G category were required to score above the cut off marks fixed by the Commission in Paper-I to be eligible to be called for Physical Endurance Test (PET)/ medical examination and finally ranking is done by further adding Paper II marks for selection of candidates. Based on Paper-I results, the applicant was asked to appear for the PET on 17.10.2011 and for Medical Examination on 18.10.2011. The applicant did not appear for both the PET and the Medical Examination on the stipulated dates. The case of the applicant is that he did not appear for the PET and Medical Test as there was an age limit of 25 years for this post and since his date of birth is 19.08.1985, as on 24.06.2011, his age was 25 years and 10 months. Therefore, being overage, he did not appear for the Medical Test and PET. The applicants case is that thereafter he was awaiting his call for the post of IO in NCB as according to him, he had obtained 123.5 marks in Paper I and 162.5 marks in Paper II i.e. a total of 286 marks against the cut off of 262.5, but he never got the call for PET for the post of IO in NCB. It may be mentioned that for the post of IO in NCB, both Paper I and Paper II were required to be cleared before being called for PET and Medical Examination as distinct from ASI in CISF where candidates were called for PET and Medical Test based on results of Paper I.

2. Being aggrieved by not being considered for the post of IO in NCB, this OA has been filed seeking the relief that his answer sheet of Paper II should be evaluated and to further process his case for appointment to the said post in NCB, to direct the respondents to intimate reasons for rejection of his candidature and declare the letter dated 7.03.2012 in which he has been awarded `zero marks, thereby rejecting his candidature merely for mistake/ discrepancy committed in his answer sheet, as perverse and arbitrary etc.

3. Heard both the parties.

4. The respondents in their reply have disputed the claim of the applicant and mentioned that the respondents have followed the rules in this case and, therefore, the OA needs to be dismissed.

5. The case of the applicant is that the department basically has not evaluated Part II of the examination paper because, though he entered his roll number correctly at two places, he forgot to code it and for this trivial error, the respondents gave him `zero marks in this paper, thus disqualifying him whereas, according to his calculation as mentioned above, he should have obtained 123.5 marks in Paper I and 162.5 marks in Paper II, thus making a total of 286 marks which is above the cut off of 262.5. The applicant has also cited order of this Tribunal in OA 740/2013 decided on 8.08.2013 in which the Tribunal had held that the trivial mistake of not indicating the date of the postal order in the form should not have formed the basis for cancellation of his candidature.

6. The respondents raised the preliminary objection about jurisdiction of this Tribunal on the ground that these services belong to armed forces and hence Tribunals jurisdiction is debarred according to Section 2 (a) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. This was contested by the applicant stating that the applicant has prayed for appointment to the post of IO in NCB and NCB comes under the Ministry of Home and hence the matter lies within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal. We are inclined to agree with the applicant as IO in NCB are not armed forces and hence not covered by Section 2 (a) of the Act.

7. The respondents in their reply on merits have stated that the cut off marks for UR candidate (i.e. the applicant) for the post of IO in NCB were 262.75. However, the applicant has scored 126 marks in Paper I and `zero marks in Paper II for the reason of non coding of his roll number in the OMR sheet. Hence, name of the applicant did not figure in the result list of IO in NCB. This is the sole reason why the candidate was not called for PET and Medical Test. It was emphasized by the respondents that in the notice of the examination, under the general instructions to be complied by the candidates in the written examination, it is clearly stated that the candidates should read instructions and follow them carefully. In the answer sheet also, on top, it is written that the answer sheet not bearing candidates name, roll number etc. will not be evaluated and awarded `zero marks. At the bottom of the first page, the following is clearly written: Answer sheet with incorrect coding of any of the particulars would be awarded `zero marks. Therefore, the respondents emphasize that they are fully justified in awarding `zero marks to the candidate and no irregularity has been committed.

8. In support of their argument, the respondents have cited the following:

(i) Order dated 4.11.2011 in OA 3751/2011 The applicant in this case had wrongly coded his roll number on the front page of the answer sheet. The Tribunal dismissed the OA. The Writ Petition preferred was also dismissed;

(ii) Order dated 1.10.2012 of the Honble Delhi High Court in WP ) No.5375/2012 This case is regarding non coding of the Test Form Number, which is not similar to the present OA. However, in this case, the Honble High Court has also pointed out that there was negligence on the part of the invigilator as well for not verifying the particulars not being correctly filled in by the candidate;

(iii) Order dated 29.11.2012 in OA 3781/2012 Again this is a case of applicant not filling up the Test Form Number in the relevant column. The OA was dismissed;

(iv) Order dated 21.12.2012 in OAs No.4193 and 4194/2012 In these cases, wrong coding was done in Ticket Number and the OAs were dismissed based on serial no. (ii) and (iii) above; and

(v) Order dated 26.03.2012 in OA 3119/2011 This is a case of wrong coding of Ticket Number and the OA was dismissed.

9. The respondents have also stated quoting the letter dated 7.03.2012 of the Staff Selection Commission (`SSC for short) that 790 candidates of Paper II have been rejected and awarded `zero marks due to various such discrepancies and it is not that the applicant only has been singled out and discriminated against. The respondents also raised the issue that knowing that he was overage, the applicant applied for `G category which does not show the conduct of the applicant in good light. Though, we also find it strange as to why he applied for this post when he should have known that he was overage but this is not germane to the main issue and, in any case, when the candidate realized that he was overage, he did not appear for the PET and Medical Examination.

10. The only reason for non-consideration of the applicant for the post of IO seems to be that he failed to enter the coding for his roll number though he did enter the roll number correctly. In fact, from Annexure R-4, it is clear that he had coded the ticket number but somehow missed coding the roll number. Therefore, it is for consideration whether he deserves any relief in view of the fact that this was a trivial error committed by him at the time of taking the exam. It is a fact that while taking the exams, slight errors can happen as the examinees are under lot of stress at that point of time. There has been no intention of the applicant to hide any facts or give any misleading facts. He had also indicated his roll number and ticket number correctly. Perhaps, while inspecting his answer sheet, the invigilator should have been more careful and had it been so, the mistake could have been rectified then and there. As has been noted above, according to his calculation, based on correct answer sheets the applicant would be able to obtain the total of 286 marks i.e. well above the minimum cut off marks. It is not fair that job opportunity to a young person should be denied due to just a trivial mistake committed by him at the time of the examination when the candidates are under different levels of stress.

11. We have also gone through various orders/ judgments cited by the applicant and the respondents and there are clearly two views taken in these matters. Moreover, the facts in each case are not also exactly similar. In Commissioner of Police and others Vs. Sandeep Kumar, (2011) 4 SCC 644, the Honble Supreme Court held as follows: When the incident happened the respondent must have been about 20 years of age. At that age young people often commit indiscretions, and such indiscretions can often be condoned. After all, youth will be youth. They are not expected to behave in as mature a manner as older people. Hence our approach should be to condone minor indiscretions made by young people rather than to brand them as criminals for the rest of their lives. When the Apex Court has even overlooked indiscretions made by youth perhaps a lenient view needs to be taken in the present case, where no indiscretion has been committed, but just a minor mistake of not coding the roll number. A little alertness on the part of the invigilator would have helped avert the situation. We, therefore, feel that there is merit in the OA and the candidature of the applicant needs to be considered.

12. We, therefore, direct the respondents to evaluate Part II of answer sheet of the applicant, accord marks and declare it. If the applicant scores above the cut off marks, he should be invited for PET/ Medical Test/ Interview and if he qualifies in them, appointed as IO in NCB. This exercise should be completed within a period of two months from the receipt of a copy of this order. ( P.K. Basu ) ( V. Ajay Kumar ) Member (A) Member (J) /dkm/

Arvind Kumar Kajla v. Union Of India

Structured Summary of the Tribunal Opinion

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Applicant's Arguments

Respondents' Arguments

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

Arvind Kumar Kajla v. Union Of India

Comments