- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned ASGI for the Union of India.
(2.) The writ petition seeks re-evaluation of applicant's/ petitioner's answer papers for the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) for promotion to the cadre of Inspector post for the year 2015- 2016. The examination was conducted on 22.10.2016 and 23.10.2016. Petitioner had applied for the Jharkhand Circle where there were 3 vacancies. The examination was on a country wide scale. Petitioner was given question Booklet Series 'D'. Petitioner noticed error in four questions i.e. question no. 73, 55, 68 and 96 in paper I, II, III & IV respectively. He made representation before the respondents on 06.01.2017. The result of the examination was declared on 21.06.2017. As per the circle wise merit list, petitioner obtained 786 marks whereas the last selected candidate obtained 792 marks. Petitioner again submitted representation on 18.09.2017 for re-checking of the errors in the answer scripts of booklet series 'D' and for re-evaluation. This was declined by letter dated 16.10.2017, which was made subject matter of challenge before the learned Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) Patna Bench, Circuit Sitting at Ranchi in O.A. /051/00121/18 (Annexure-4). Learned CAT after considering the submission of the applicant / petitioner in the original application and the stand taken by the respondents through their written statement, refused to interfere in the matter holding as under:- "2. The respondents have denied the claim of the applicant in their written statement. They have stated that there were 189 vacancies under the Department of Posts against which 3 vacancies were in the Jharkhand Circle. Total 65 candidates from Jharkhand Circle were allowed to appear in the aforesaid examination. However, total 59 candidates from Jharkhand Circle appeared in this examination. Following a number of questions of provisional answer keys and due to feedback and comments received from the candidates a total 135 questions on all the four papers were disputed. The objections of the applicant herein were on total 10 questions which were included in this compiled list and it was submitted to an Expert Committee. The Expert Committee, after examining all these objections, had recommended to drop a total 24 questions and to revise the provisional answer key of 9 questions after this. Thus, after doing this thorough check including those objections which were raised by the applicant, the answers were checked through machine with 100% accuracy and cross checked manually with 10% answer scripts. Since such details re-assessment of the examination process had already been done further request by the applicant on the grounds raised in this OA is not maintainable. It is also because any discrepancy noticed during the examination should have been raised by the candidate before the room Invigilator. Since the objections raised by Amit Kumar (applicant herein) including those relating to questions in the 'D' series, were already taken into consideration, new contentions now raised by the applicant were not found worthy of consideration.
(3.) We have gone through the pleadings and heard argument of the learned counsels of both the parties. The reply of the respondents in their WS explains in detail the corrective action taken by them for correcting the mistakes in the questions and the answer sheet. Though it is true that some questions might have still escaped the notice of the Committee because of no alarm/ complaint being raised about their accuracy, it needs to be seen whether these mistakes are sufficiently material to change the whole result. We find it prima facie not to be so. In any case, the obvious mistake in not printing the correct answer option would have affected all the candidates equally. The remaining three out of 150 would not make material difference in the assessment to warrant re-assessment and quashing of examination. The OA is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs." Petitioner/ applicant being aggrieved has approached this Court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that categorical plea was taken in respect of at least 3 questions forming part of Paper-III (IPO) of question booklet series 'D', which concerns rules and acts, such as the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. However, these questions were not part of the scrutiny exercise undertaken by the Expert Committee as per Annexure-A/3 at page 44 dated 21.06.2017. Relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Ran Vijay Singh & Others Vrs. State of U.P. and others , 2018 2 SCC 357, in Civil Appeal No. 367 of 2017 order dated 11.12.2017 it is argued that the Court may permit re-evaluation or scrutiny only if it is demonstrated very clearly that answer sheets contains material error, though such an opinion should not be derived from inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalization. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal has failed to examine the case of the petitioner in that light. ;