OA No. 3943/2011. Case: Kailash Prasad Meena S/o Shri Gopi Ram Meena, Sorting Assistant, New Delhi Railway Station, Transit Mail Office, New Delhi-110055 Vs Union of India Through Secretary Ministry of Communications, Director of General of Posts, Dak Bhawan, New Delhi-110001, Meenu Parikh Patori, G. Dungari, Near Khemdas Temple, P.O. Rajgarh, Distt. Alwar Rajasthan, Abhijit Banerjee, C/o Kartik Chand, E-76, Ramgarh, Kolkata and Sajan Ram Chaudhary C/o Shri Ram Saini, ViII, Patari, K.i. Dungari, P.O. Karots, Via Rajgarh, Distt. Alwar Rajasthan. Central Administrative Tribunal
| Case Number | OA No. 3943/2011 |
| Judges | Dr. Dharam Paul Sharma, Member (J) and Mr. Sudhir Kumar, Member (A) |
| Issue | Service Law |
| Judgement Date | September 13, 2012 |
| Court | Central Administrative Tribunal |
Order:
Mr. Sudhir Kumar, Member (A), (Principal Bench, New Delhi)
-
The applicant is an employee of the Postal Department, working as Sorting Assistant at the New Delhi Railway Station, Transit Mail Office. The respondents had introduced a Scheme for conducting an All India Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE, in short) for Recruitment to the posts of Inspector of Posts (IPO, in short), and the examination for the year 2007 was conducted from 10th to 12th August, 2007. The result of that examination was declared on 26.02.2008 through Annexure R-1. Two of the candidates of Bihar Circle had challenged the result of that examination in OA Nos. 649/2008 and 146/2009 before Patna Bench of this Tribunal, challenging wrong preparation of the answer keys to certain questions, and the Patna Bench had directed the Department to consider their representations. Finding the objections raised to the answer keys to be correct, rechecking of all the answer sheets was done thereafter, and result of the rechecking was declared by the respondents through OM dated 16.07.2010, as per the documents filed by both the sides. The applicant, herein, could not however succeed even thereafter. However, while the Patna Bench case related to the answer keys to the questions Nos. 5,7 & 9 of Paper-III, the applicant, herein, is aggrieved regarding the rechecking done thereafter. He requested the Department through his representation dated 06.10.2010, and filed an RTI application dated 12.01.2011, a reply to which was issued to him, covering the response to his earlier representation also, through Annexure A-7 dated 09.03.2011, stating as follows:-
i) Your application dated 06.10.2010 fwd by O/o CPMG, New Delhi vide their letter No. R&E/B-2/Insp/2007 dated 22.11.2010 has been examined thoroughly in this office.
ii) Allotment of surplus SC/ST candidates of IP Examination 2007 to other circles was done after ascertaining verification from the circle and after coming to the conclusion that no further vacancies would be available. 4 ST vacancies left unfilled due to shortage of surplus qualified candidates.
(Emphasis supplied)
The applicant has alleged that few of the candidates of the examination, named by him as the Private Respondents No. 2,3, & 4, through filing of the amended Memo of Parties on 09.11.2011, were unfairly favoured by the respondents by giving them additional marks while reassessing their answer sheets pursuant to the directions of the Patna Bench so as to declare them as successful candidates. The applicant went to the extent of applying for copies of the answer sheets purporting to be those of the private respondents, which he has filed as Annexure A-8 (Colly).
-
The grievance of the applicant is that if the official respondent had favoured some candidates to help them pass in the IPO Exam, he should also have been favoured by granting him additional marks. He has submitted that even though he had...
To continue reading
Request your trial