Answer Papers should be evaluated properly
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH
Original Application No. 756 of 2010
Wednesday, this the 05th day of January, 2011
CORAM:
HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE P.R. RAMAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE Mr. K. GEORGE JOSEPH, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
R. Binoj, aged 31 years,
S/o. C. Raju, Postman,
Karimannur P.O., Thodupuzha,
Residing at 'Chellakulam House',
Kolahalamedu, Vagamon P.O.,
Idukki District. ... Applicant.
(By Advocate Mr. Shafik M.A.)
versus
1. Union of India, Represented by
The Chief Postmaster General,
Kerala Circle, Trivandrum.
2. The Superintendent of Post Offices,
Idukki Division, Idukki.
3. P.K. Thomas,
Postman, Idukki Colony ... Respondents.
(By Advocate Mr. Varghese P. Thomas for R!-2)
The application having been heard on 20.12.2010, the Tribunal on 5.1.2011 delivered the following:
O R D E R
HON'BLE Mr. K. GEORGE JOSEPH, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
Original Application No. 756 of 2010
Wednesday, this the 05th day of January, 2011
CORAM:
HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE P.R. RAMAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE Mr. K. GEORGE JOSEPH, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
R. Binoj, aged 31 years,
S/o. C. Raju, Postman,
Karimannur P.O., Thodupuzha,
Residing at 'Chellakulam House',
Kolahalamedu, Vagamon P.O.,
Idukki District. ... Applicant.
(By Advocate Mr. Shafik M.A.)
versus
1. Union of India, Represented by
The Chief Postmaster General,
Kerala Circle, Trivandrum.
2. The Superintendent of Post Offices,
Idukki Division, Idukki.
3. P.K. Thomas,
Postman, Idukki Colony ... Respondents.
(By Advocate Mr. Varghese P. Thomas for R!-2)
The application having been heard on 20.12.2010, the Tribunal on 5.1.2011 delivered the following:
O R D E R
HON'BLE Mr. K. GEORGE JOSEPH, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
The applicant is a Postman who appeared in the examination for promotion as Postal Assistant held on 06.11.2009. He was not declared as passed as he was short of one mark in paper-I English in which he got only 39 marks. On getting a copy of the answer paper under the RTI Act, he found that certain answers were not evaluated properly. His representation to the authorities concerned did not evoke any positive result. Hence, he filed the present O.A. for the following reliefs:
"(i) To call for the records relating to Annexure A-1 to A-7 to declare that the applicant is entitled to be awarded marks in question No. 8(5), 4 and 5 in A-4 answer sheet;
(ii) To direct the respondent to re-evaluate the answer paper in Paper-I English and to award the correct marks to the applicant and to revise the select list, include the applicant and to make promotions on the basis of such revised lists;
(iii) To declare Rule 15 of Appendix 37 of P&T Manual Volume IV as unconstitutional, ultra vires, unreasonable and void;
(iv) To issue appropriate direction or order to revise the select list and to appoint the applicant also as Postal Assistant in Idukki Division immediately on the basis of the marks on revaluation; and to grant him all consequential benefits with effect from the date of his entitlement.
(v) To issue such other appropriate orders or directions this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit, just and proper in the circumstances of the case."
2. As the respondents have reevaluated the answer paper in Paper-I English in terms of Annexure R-3 order dated 02.08.2010, the relief to declare Rule 15 of Appendix 37 of P&T Manual Volume IV as
unconstitutional does not survive. What remains to adjudicate is whether the applicant is entitled to be awarded marks for answers to question Nos. 4, 5 and 8(5) in Annexure A-4 answer paper and if so, whether he is entitled to consequential benefits.
3. As per interim order dated 03.09.2010, the applicant was sent for induction training at PTC, Mysore. Further, as per interim order dated 27.10.2010, he was allowed to undergo in-service training and the
applicant has completed the training.
4. The applicant contends that the refusal of the respondents to rectify the mistakes specifically pointed out in evaluating the answer paper and to declare him as passed is illegal and arbitrary. According to the applicant, the answers to question Nos. 4 and 5 merit more marks than he was awarded and correct answer to 8(5) is struck off as wrong. Awarding only 39 marks in Paper-I English and declaring him as failed even though he has scored high marks in other papers without awarding
marks for correct answers is highly illegal and arbitrary. He is short of only one mark in paper-I English. If one mark is added then he would become the second one in the merit list.
5. The respondents contested the O.A. They took the stand that the applicant failed in the examination even after revaluation. He could secure only 34 out of 100 marks on re-evaluation against 39 marks
awarded originally. In both ways, he failed to secure the minimum 40% marks prescribed for qualifying in the examination. They further stated that the case of the applicant would come within the ambit of issue No.1 and that they took action to appoint an independent examiner to revalue the answer scripts of the applicant, even without waiting for a direction from this Tribunal.
6. In the additional reply statement, the respondents submitted that the revaluation of answer scripts would mean valuing the entire answer scripts once again to reassess the value of each answer. In the instant case, the applicant got one more mark for the answer to question No. 8(5) in Paper-I English while he lost marks for answers to questions No. 1 to 3. In similar cases, like O.A. Nos. 413/2010, 459/2010 and 512/2010, on revaluation of answer scripts by an independent examiner, the applicants therein got higher marks than the initial valuation. The respondents have followed the spirit of revaluation in all the cases alike, observing the principle of equity in the revaluation of the entire answer
scripts of the applicant applying the uniform principle.
7. We have heard Mr. Shafik M.A., learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Varghese P. Thomas, ACGSC, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the records.
8. The respondents submitted that re-evaluation of paper-I English was done taking into consideration of Annexure R-3 order dated 02.08.2010. Although it is not permissible to consider requests of the
candidate for revaluation after declaration of the results as it will not only cause great inconvenience to the examination process and also cause hindrance to the administration in the absence of vacancies of particular category viz; OC, SC, ST etc. under departmental quota but also against the spirit of Rule 15, Appendix 37 of Postal Manual Volume-IV, the respondents decided to conduct the revaluation of answer papers in the following circumstances as narrated in Annexure R-3 letter dated 02.08.2010:
"3. It may be seen that representations requesting for revaluation of answer papers are being received in this office specifically pointing out the following grievances :
(i) Particular answer(s) were not evaluated (ii) Excess attempted answer(s) were not
evaluated (iii)For the same answer(s), the examiner awarded marks to one candidate and to another candidate no marks were assigned or the answer struck off as wrong (iv)All the answers were evaluated but justified marks were not awarded by the examiner
4. The issues indicated at (I) to (iii) above are justified and need to be examined by the competent authority to find out the facts and if the claim of the candidates appears to be genuine, revaluation may be got done by an independent examiner in such cases and further necessary action may be taken. In so far as the issue indicated at (iv) above, there is no need to consider such requests and merits rejection at the initial stage itself."
9. According to the respondents, the case of the applicants would come within the ambit of issue No. (i) "Particular answer(s) were not evaluated" in Annexure R-1 letter dated 02.08.2010. This stand is not correct. The contention of the applicant is that the answer to question No. 8(5) and 4 are correct and that he has answered question No. 5 correctly in more than 4 fill-in-the-blanks. It is not the case of the applicant that particular answer to the question was not evaluated. In respect of answer to question No. 8(5), the case of the applicant is covered under issue No. (iii) as the answer given by the applicant was struck off as wrong.
10. Answer to question No. 8(5) which was struck off as wrong initially was rectified in revaluation granting one more mark to the applicant. As such he would have got 40 marks and would have passed the examination and got promotion. But the independent examiner revalued the entire answer paper and reduced two marks for the answer to question No. 1 and four marks for answer to question No. 3 thereby bringing the total marks to 34 from the original marks of 39. The respondents went about the revaluation of the answer papers of the applicant in paper-I English as per their understanding of Annexure R-3 letter dated 02.08.2010. The grievance of the applicant was pertaining to grant of less marks to the answers to questions No. 4 and 5 and the correct answer to question No. 8(5) struck off as wrong. In the revaluation, it was found that the answer to question 8(5) was correct and accordingly he was given one additional mark. The applicant had no dispute about the marks awarded to answers other than answers 4, 5 and 8(5). This Tribunal had directed revaluation of the answer paper of the applicant in paper-I English in the context of the relief sought in the instant O.A. But the respondents did not understand it rightly. In fact, as per their reply statement they had taken action to revalue the answer scripts of the applicant even without waiting for a direction from this Tribunal. In the orders dated 04.11.2010 and 01.12.2010, it was made clear that the revaluation ordered by the Tribunal was confined to the answers to question Nos. 4, 5 and 8(5). The interim directions of thisTribunal on revaluation of the answer scripts in respect of 4, 5 and 8(5) were not carried out by the respondents. The revaluation done by them is independent of the directions of this Tribunal.
11. In M.A. Nos. 921 of 2010 and 976 of 2010 in the present O.A., the 2nd respondent without understanding the directions given by this Tribunal in the context of the facts and circumstances of the O.A., prayed for modification of interim orders of this Tribunal dated 27.10.2010 and 01.12.2010 respectively. We do not find any merit in the stand taken by the 2nd respondent. We dismiss the aforesaid M.As as misconceived.
12. Revaluation of answer scripts other than those pertaining to questions 4, 5 and 8(5) was never sought by the applicant. This Tribunal had directed, as was clarified vide order dated 01.12.2010, if at all there was any misunderstanding in the minds of the respondents, that revaluation is confined to the answer scripts for questions 4, 5 and 8(5) only. If the respondents have gone beyond the direction of this Tribunal in reevaluating the answer scripts for other questions then that is not relevant for deciding whether the reliefs sought in the instant O.A., should be granted or not.
13. Even then, we would observe that answers to questions No. 1 and 3 for which the marks were reduced on revaluation are descriptive in nature as against answer to question No. 8(5) for which one additional mark is given on revaluation is not descriptive. In evaluating descriptive answers, it is trite to say that subjectivity of the evaluator plays a big role. Subjectivity varies from person to person depending on his personality, learning and experience. It is also seen that answers to question Nos. 4
and 5 are also not descriptive in nature. Therefore, the revaluation of answers to question Nos. 1 and 3 is all the more irrelevant in the facts and circumstances of the case and directions of this Tribunal.
14. We are constrained to observe that the examination for promotion as Postal Assistants held on 06.11.2009 has led to a number of litigations on account of haphazard manner of evaluation. The Department of Posts had to issue an order for revaluation as at Annexure R3(I). Even the said order and the directions of the Tribunal in this O.A. were not implemented properly. We do hope the respondent authorities would be more careful and serious in conducting examination in future.
15. In confining the revaluation of the answer scripts of the applicant to award correct marks for the answers to only question Nos. 4, 5 and 8(5) of paper-I English in the examination for promotion as Postal Assistant conducted in the year 2009, we find that the applicant has been awarded no additional marks for answers to question Nos. 4 and 5 and that one mark more is awarded for answer to question No.8(5), thus raising his total marks from 39 to 40.
10. In the result, the O.A. succeeds. Accordingly, we declare that the applicant is entitled to one mark for correctly answering question No. 8(5) in Paper-I English thereby raising the marks awarded to him in the said paper to 40, which is the pass mark. The respondents are directed to revise the select list to include the applicant and to grant him all consequential benefits from the date of his entitlement within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs.
(Dated, the 05th January, 2011)
(K. GEORGE JOSEPH) JUSTICE P.R. RAMAN)
ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
"(i) To call for the records relating to Annexure A-1 to A-7 to declare that the applicant is entitled to be awarded marks in question No. 8(5), 4 and 5 in A-4 answer sheet;
(ii) To direct the respondent to re-evaluate the answer paper in Paper-I English and to award the correct marks to the applicant and to revise the select list, include the applicant and to make promotions on the basis of such revised lists;
(iii) To declare Rule 15 of Appendix 37 of P&T Manual Volume IV as unconstitutional, ultra vires, unreasonable and void;
(iv) To issue appropriate direction or order to revise the select list and to appoint the applicant also as Postal Assistant in Idukki Division immediately on the basis of the marks on revaluation; and to grant him all consequential benefits with effect from the date of his entitlement.
(v) To issue such other appropriate orders or directions this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit, just and proper in the circumstances of the case."
2. As the respondents have reevaluated the answer paper in Paper-I English in terms of Annexure R-3 order dated 02.08.2010, the relief to declare Rule 15 of Appendix 37 of P&T Manual Volume IV as
unconstitutional does not survive. What remains to adjudicate is whether the applicant is entitled to be awarded marks for answers to question Nos. 4, 5 and 8(5) in Annexure A-4 answer paper and if so, whether he is entitled to consequential benefits.
3. As per interim order dated 03.09.2010, the applicant was sent for induction training at PTC, Mysore. Further, as per interim order dated 27.10.2010, he was allowed to undergo in-service training and the
applicant has completed the training.
4. The applicant contends that the refusal of the respondents to rectify the mistakes specifically pointed out in evaluating the answer paper and to declare him as passed is illegal and arbitrary. According to the applicant, the answers to question Nos. 4 and 5 merit more marks than he was awarded and correct answer to 8(5) is struck off as wrong. Awarding only 39 marks in Paper-I English and declaring him as failed even though he has scored high marks in other papers without awarding
marks for correct answers is highly illegal and arbitrary. He is short of only one mark in paper-I English. If one mark is added then he would become the second one in the merit list.
5. The respondents contested the O.A. They took the stand that the applicant failed in the examination even after revaluation. He could secure only 34 out of 100 marks on re-evaluation against 39 marks
awarded originally. In both ways, he failed to secure the minimum 40% marks prescribed for qualifying in the examination. They further stated that the case of the applicant would come within the ambit of issue No.1 and that they took action to appoint an independent examiner to revalue the answer scripts of the applicant, even without waiting for a direction from this Tribunal.
6. In the additional reply statement, the respondents submitted that the revaluation of answer scripts would mean valuing the entire answer scripts once again to reassess the value of each answer. In the instant case, the applicant got one more mark for the answer to question No. 8(5) in Paper-I English while he lost marks for answers to questions No. 1 to 3. In similar cases, like O.A. Nos. 413/2010, 459/2010 and 512/2010, on revaluation of answer scripts by an independent examiner, the applicants therein got higher marks than the initial valuation. The respondents have followed the spirit of revaluation in all the cases alike, observing the principle of equity in the revaluation of the entire answer
scripts of the applicant applying the uniform principle.
7. We have heard Mr. Shafik M.A., learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Varghese P. Thomas, ACGSC, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the records.
8. The respondents submitted that re-evaluation of paper-I English was done taking into consideration of Annexure R-3 order dated 02.08.2010. Although it is not permissible to consider requests of the
candidate for revaluation after declaration of the results as it will not only cause great inconvenience to the examination process and also cause hindrance to the administration in the absence of vacancies of particular category viz; OC, SC, ST etc. under departmental quota but also against the spirit of Rule 15, Appendix 37 of Postal Manual Volume-IV, the respondents decided to conduct the revaluation of answer papers in the following circumstances as narrated in Annexure R-3 letter dated 02.08.2010:
"3. It may be seen that representations requesting for revaluation of answer papers are being received in this office specifically pointing out the following grievances :
(i) Particular answer(s) were not evaluated (ii) Excess attempted answer(s) were not
evaluated (iii)For the same answer(s), the examiner awarded marks to one candidate and to another candidate no marks were assigned or the answer struck off as wrong (iv)All the answers were evaluated but justified marks were not awarded by the examiner
4. The issues indicated at (I) to (iii) above are justified and need to be examined by the competent authority to find out the facts and if the claim of the candidates appears to be genuine, revaluation may be got done by an independent examiner in such cases and further necessary action may be taken. In so far as the issue indicated at (iv) above, there is no need to consider such requests and merits rejection at the initial stage itself."
9. According to the respondents, the case of the applicants would come within the ambit of issue No. (i) "Particular answer(s) were not evaluated" in Annexure R-1 letter dated 02.08.2010. This stand is not correct. The contention of the applicant is that the answer to question No. 8(5) and 4 are correct and that he has answered question No. 5 correctly in more than 4 fill-in-the-blanks. It is not the case of the applicant that particular answer to the question was not evaluated. In respect of answer to question No. 8(5), the case of the applicant is covered under issue No. (iii) as the answer given by the applicant was struck off as wrong.
10. Answer to question No. 8(5) which was struck off as wrong initially was rectified in revaluation granting one more mark to the applicant. As such he would have got 40 marks and would have passed the examination and got promotion. But the independent examiner revalued the entire answer paper and reduced two marks for the answer to question No. 1 and four marks for answer to question No. 3 thereby bringing the total marks to 34 from the original marks of 39. The respondents went about the revaluation of the answer papers of the applicant in paper-I English as per their understanding of Annexure R-3 letter dated 02.08.2010. The grievance of the applicant was pertaining to grant of less marks to the answers to questions No. 4 and 5 and the correct answer to question No. 8(5) struck off as wrong. In the revaluation, it was found that the answer to question 8(5) was correct and accordingly he was given one additional mark. The applicant had no dispute about the marks awarded to answers other than answers 4, 5 and 8(5). This Tribunal had directed revaluation of the answer paper of the applicant in paper-I English in the context of the relief sought in the instant O.A. But the respondents did not understand it rightly. In fact, as per their reply statement they had taken action to revalue the answer scripts of the applicant even without waiting for a direction from this Tribunal. In the orders dated 04.11.2010 and 01.12.2010, it was made clear that the revaluation ordered by the Tribunal was confined to the answers to question Nos. 4, 5 and 8(5). The interim directions of thisTribunal on revaluation of the answer scripts in respect of 4, 5 and 8(5) were not carried out by the respondents. The revaluation done by them is independent of the directions of this Tribunal.
11. In M.A. Nos. 921 of 2010 and 976 of 2010 in the present O.A., the 2nd respondent without understanding the directions given by this Tribunal in the context of the facts and circumstances of the O.A., prayed for modification of interim orders of this Tribunal dated 27.10.2010 and 01.12.2010 respectively. We do not find any merit in the stand taken by the 2nd respondent. We dismiss the aforesaid M.As as misconceived.
12. Revaluation of answer scripts other than those pertaining to questions 4, 5 and 8(5) was never sought by the applicant. This Tribunal had directed, as was clarified vide order dated 01.12.2010, if at all there was any misunderstanding in the minds of the respondents, that revaluation is confined to the answer scripts for questions 4, 5 and 8(5) only. If the respondents have gone beyond the direction of this Tribunal in reevaluating the answer scripts for other questions then that is not relevant for deciding whether the reliefs sought in the instant O.A., should be granted or not.
13. Even then, we would observe that answers to questions No. 1 and 3 for which the marks were reduced on revaluation are descriptive in nature as against answer to question No. 8(5) for which one additional mark is given on revaluation is not descriptive. In evaluating descriptive answers, it is trite to say that subjectivity of the evaluator plays a big role. Subjectivity varies from person to person depending on his personality, learning and experience. It is also seen that answers to question Nos. 4
and 5 are also not descriptive in nature. Therefore, the revaluation of answers to question Nos. 1 and 3 is all the more irrelevant in the facts and circumstances of the case and directions of this Tribunal.
14. We are constrained to observe that the examination for promotion as Postal Assistants held on 06.11.2009 has led to a number of litigations on account of haphazard manner of evaluation. The Department of Posts had to issue an order for revaluation as at Annexure R3(I). Even the said order and the directions of the Tribunal in this O.A. were not implemented properly. We do hope the respondent authorities would be more careful and serious in conducting examination in future.
15. In confining the revaluation of the answer scripts of the applicant to award correct marks for the answers to only question Nos. 4, 5 and 8(5) of paper-I English in the examination for promotion as Postal Assistant conducted in the year 2009, we find that the applicant has been awarded no additional marks for answers to question Nos. 4 and 5 and that one mark more is awarded for answer to question No.8(5), thus raising his total marks from 39 to 40.
10. In the result, the O.A. succeeds. Accordingly, we declare that the applicant is entitled to one mark for correctly answering question No. 8(5) in Paper-I English thereby raising the marks awarded to him in the said paper to 40, which is the pass mark. The respondents are directed to revise the select list to include the applicant and to grant him all consequential benefits from the date of his entitlement within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs.
(Dated, the 05th January, 2011)
(K. GEORGE JOSEPH) JUSTICE P.R. RAMAN)
ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment