UNION OF INDIA Vs. KULDEEP KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Union of India (UOI) is a writ petitioner in these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is aggrieved by a common order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) dated 05.04.2013 in O.A. No.4215/2011 and other connected cases.

(2.) AN advertisement was issued on 20.08.2010 for recruitment of Postal Assistants - 320 vacancies were notified in various categories. It is not in dispute that the recruitment process encompassed a written test, an aptitude test and a computer test. While for the aptitude test, 50% weightage was allowable, upto 40% weightage was to be given for the qualifying board/12th standard marks and weightage of 10 marks was to be given for the computer test. The respondent applicants, amongst several others, were declared successful and offered appointment. They apparently accepted the offer and joined the services some time in 2011. After this development, one of the unsuccessful candidates, i.e. Tarkeshwar Prasad submitted queries under the Right to Information Act (RTI). Along with this, he demanded the answer sheets in respect of the aptitude tests of certain candidates. He thereafter represented to the UOI alleging grave irregularities in the marking of certain candidates' answer sheets in the aptitude test. This led to a review, which involved re -evaluation of the answer sheets of all 1425 candidates who responded to the recruitment process. The answer sheets in the aptitude test, enabling the candidates to secure upto 50% weightage (that can be secured in the recruitment process) were specifically gone into in each case. It was found that in the case of 11 successful candidates who had reported for duty, the marking was inaccurate. Of these, there were grave irregularities in respect of four candidates in that even though the candidates attempted the aptitude test to the extent of something between 25 -30 marks, more & shy; nearly double or some times even triple the marks - have been given. In the case of seven others, however, the re -evaluation yielded results which were marginally different, in that the respondents were shown to have obtained 1% or less than what was awarded to them actually. The concerned authorities were able to pin -point the role of certain officials, against whom departmental action was proposed and is said to have been taken.

(3.) BEFORE the CAT, the respondents/applicants' contention was that in the absence of any power to re -evaluate the answer sheets, the employer (UOI) could not have ordered such a course of action. It was also contended that the wholesale action in directing the removal of all candidates regardless of their culpability, was arbitrary. The CAT, in its impugned order, upheld the first contention and held that even if there is no express power enabling the UOI to re -evaluate the answer sheets, nevertheless, it ought to have taken recourse to certain general circulars in the circumstances and that the facts of the case, to justify the re -evaluation of all the 1425 answer sheets. After considering the submissions of the parties, the CAT took a nuanced position in that it did not quash the entire merit list drawn after the re -evaluation. The CAT in this regard held as follows: