- (1.) Heard Sri N.P. Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner and Dr. G.S.D. Mishra, Advocate, for respondents.
(2.) This writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution has come up against judgment and order dated 20.05.2011 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as "Tribunal") whereby it has allowed Original Application (hereinafter referred to as "OA") No. 1616 of 2004 and OA No. 1584 of 2004 directing petitioner to get merit list revised after having copies of the examination revalued by Examiners.
(3.) It appears that a selection was held for the post of Assistant Administrative Officer vide letter dated 05.03.2002 conducted by Indian Veterinary Research Institute (hereinafter referred to as "IVRI"). Selection process comprised of written examination which was held between 06.05.2002 to 10.05.2002. Result was declared on 22.07.2002 wherein respondents 2 and 3 were selected and promoted on the post of Assistant Administrative Officer. Certain complaints were received by Secretary, Indian Council for Agriculture Research, Krishi Bhavan, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "ICAR") which was communicated to IVRI and thereafter complaint was examined wherein several irregularities in the assessment of copies etc. were noticed. Consequently, by order dated 18.02.2003, entire selection was cancelled giving following reasons: "i. Marks once awarded were changed by the evaluator by way of increase. ii. Marks once awarded were changed by the Evaluator by way of decrease. iii. Marks were awarded to wrong answers. iv. Final marks put up on the top sheet of the answer book were more than that what was actually awarded against the answers of the question. v. Evaluation of certain answer was not made at all. vi. Deviation was made from the scheme and Syllabus of the examination by setting subjective type. vii. Some questions were set from out side syllabus. viii. Marks allotted to various questions were not indicated in a question paper and the evaluator himself decided the allotment of marks to different questions. ix. ACRS were not recorded/evaluated properly.";