MEERA SHARMA Vs. INSTITUTE OF BANKING PERSONNEL SELECTION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner appeared in Common Written Examination (CWE) for recruitment in clerical cadre of Public Sector Banks being conducted by Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (IBPS). Prayer has been made that the respondents be directed to conduct fresh examination of the subject/section "Quantitative Aptitude" and provide opportunity to the petitioner in view of Clause 13 of the advertisement or in the alternative direct the Respondent No. 1 to award bonus/grace marks to the petitioner for the failure of their computer system. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner was allotted computer for appearing in the online examination at the examination centre. The petitioner completed four sections within one hour and 30 minutes and she kept 30 minutes for attempting the paper of "Quantitative Aptitude". After attempting 6 -7 questions, the computer's screen was freezed. The answers/options of the paper could not be clicked and the same could not be submitted due to failure of the system while the timer was on and running continuously. This problem occurred with every candidate sitting in the same room as the computer systems of the entire room of the examination centre were freezed. The petitioner several time tried to click on the screen to answer the questions but the same was not accepted by the system. The petitioner made a complaint in this regard to the invigilator who called another person to look into the matter, but the problem could not be sorted out. The college authorities shifted the petitioner to another room. By that time, 15 -20 minutes were already lost and only 6 minutes were left for attempting the entire question paper of "Quantitative Aptitude". The petitioner arranged the rough sheets and started the new computer system but by that time, the time was over and the petitioner could not attempt the remaining questions. The respondents did not provide extra time for attempting the question paper.

(2.) MR . R.K. Salecha, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that it is wrong to say that the petitioner attempted only 6 -7 questions of the subject of "Quantitative Aptitude" when the computer screen was freezed. It is contended that the respondents have taken services of the Tata Consultancy Services Limited which is country's premier I.T. Solution provider company and has been managing online recruitment itself. From the Audit Log of the petitioner it is observed that system was logged off at 04:23:07 P.M. and the petitioner had resumed her test at 04:27:57. Thus, the time of 4.50 minute, which was lost on account of locking of the system, was extended and the petitioner allowed to take her test upto 4:36:03 P.M. instead of 4.30 P.M. Learned counsel for the respondents has invited attention of the Court towards Log Sheet (Annexure R/2) which indicates that the computer system provided to the petitioner remained locked during the period 04:23:07 to 04:27:57 whereas the petitioner was provided 6.03 minutes extra as she submitted examination sheet at 16:36:03. In this manner, the petitioner was granted extra time. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that as per the information received from Tata Consultancy Services (Annexure R/2), the petitioners computer got locked once but there has been no time loss found. There was no such problem reported by anyone from the test centre during or after the examination. It is, therefore, wrong to say that all the computers in the room in which the petitioner was sitting were got locked.

(3.) IN view of above discussion, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. Stay application also stands dismissed.