SYED SHABBIR ALI Vs. UPSC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the order dated 4.2.2009, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ,,Tribunal), whereby OS No. 133/2009 filed by the petitioner was dismissed. The facts giving to the filing of this writ petition can be summarized as under: The petitioner appeared in Civil Services Examination 2006. He cleared the preliminary examination but could not make it in the main examination. Since the petitioner was informed that he had not done well in English, which was a compulsory paper, his answer book of English paper was rechecked and the marks were re-totaled by the respondents. No mistake was, however, found in the answer sheet since all the answers had been evaluated and there was no totalling mistake. The petitioner, therefore, filed OA No. 133/2009 seeking the following reliefs:

(2.) IN OA No. 1389/2007 and 1747/2007 decided by the tribunal on 18.7.2008, the applicants who had appeared in Civil Services Examination conducted by the UPSC had sought re-examination and re-evaluation of their answer sheets by an independent person. The contention of the applicants was that the method of inter- examiner moderation which is done to counter the effect of leniency or strictness of examiners and the inter-subject moderation which is done to counter the effect of nature of different optional subjects, was erroneous. It was also submitted by them that the scheme of examination does not provide for such moderation and scaling in respect of the marks awarded by the examiner. The Tribunal, relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Sanjay Singh vs. UPSC, Allahabad and Anr. (2001) 3 SCC 720 and the decision of this Court in Neel Rattan vs. Union of INdia LPA No. 615/2006, held that since the methodology of moderation and scaling had already been examined and approved by the Supreme Court as well as by this Court, there was no merit in the petition seeking re-evaluation of the answer sheet.

(3.) WE would also like to note here that the Central Information Commission while deciding an appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 19 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 held that the information regarding raw marks/moderated marks cannot be disclosed. The tribunal had also seen the raw/moderated marks obtained by the petitioner in the English paper and was apparently satisfied. A perusal of the order of the Commission dated 30.10.2008 would show that on perusal of answer sheet of the petitioner, the Commission found that there was no tampering or alteration of the marks. The Commission felt that the quality of the answers given by the petitioner call for considerable improvement. Before the Commission, the petitioner submitted a copy of the essay submitted in the answer seeking to know whether the same quotation from the famous Poet Iqbal and reference to Portuguese was there in the answer sheets shown to the commission. On examination, the Commission was satisfied that the answer sheet shown to them was in fact the answer sheet of the petitioner. The order passed by the Commission was not challenged further by the petitioner, and therefore, has become final and is binding on him. In any case, since we have ourselves perused the answer sheet and the petitioner has admitted that the answer sheet produced for our perusal is his answer sheet, the issue in this respect needs to be finally closed.