ABHISHEK PRATAP AJAY Vs. BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed the present writ petition impugning the order dated 9.5.2011 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (tribunal? for short) dismissing the O.A. No. 66/2011.

(2.) LEARNED counsel has submitted that the answer to question No. 14 given by the petitioner was correct but was marked as incorrect and because of negative marking, the petitioner has been denied appointment. He submits that if the petitioner?s answer to question No. 14 is treated as correct, the petitioner qualifies. He further submits that the petitioner had correctly answered question No. 16 and in fact the respondents had changed the key subsequently, as a result of which, the petitioner has been eliminated.

(3.) TRIBUNAL has accepted the reasoning and stand of the respondent. We agree with the findings of the tribunal in the impugned decision. The respondents in the examination paper were evaluating and examining the understanding of the candidates in English language and had expected the candidates to answer the questions not on the basis of their general understanding but on the basis of grammar and textbook English. It is not for the Court to determine and set the standards and question the nature of the questions and answers which were expected. This is entirely in the domain of the respondents. They have to determine and decide, keeping in view their needs and requirement. The question paper and key answers are set by experts in consultation with others in the relevant field and as per the job requirements. Needless to state, we do not find any absurdity in the answers which have been treated as correct answers for the two questions. The respondents were obviously looking at certain amount of precision and exactness in the answers and not vagueness, as per the keys that have been treated as the correct answers. Moreover, any interference will upset the entire selection process itself.