- (1.) Aggrieved by order dated 23.01.2013 in and by which the Central Administrative Tribunal allowed O.A. No. 108 of 2011 (R) with a direction to the Department to reconsider re-evaluation of the Answer-Sheets of the applicant and to complete the exercise within four months from the date of communication of order, the present writ petition has been filed. Brief Facts The applicant was appointed as Sorting Assistant and he had been working in the Office of the Superintendent, R.M.S., Ranchi since 01.07.1997. He appeared in the departmental examination for the I.P.Os. Examination, 2007 held between 10.08.2007 to 12.08.2007, for which the result was declared on 26.02.2008. Though, the respondent herein obtained total of 300 marks in five papers, he could secure only 39 marks in Paper-II and 18 Marks in Paper-III and therefore, he was declared unsuccessful. The respondent-applicant made a representation on 09.11.2011 for re-evaluation of Paper-II and Paper-III of I.P.Os. Examination, 2007. An application under the R.T.I. Act, 2005 was also made by the respondent on 27.10.2009 and the reply on 5 points query made by the respondent as well as Answer-Sheets of Paper-II and Paper-III of I.P.Os. Examination, 2007 were provided to the respondent vide letter dated 25.10.2010. Pursuant to representation of the respondent, the marks awarded to the respondent in Paper-II and Paper-III were also re-checked and marks in Paper-II were raised by 1/2 marks and thus his total marks in Paper-II was raised from 38.1/2 to 39 in re-checking. In Paper-III also his marks was raised from 18 to 28. Still aggrieved, the respondent approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench Patna (Circuit Court at Ranchi) in O.A. No. 108 of 2011 (R) which has been allowed vide order dated 23.01.2013.
(2.) We have heard Mr. Md. Mokhtar Khan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner who has submitted that in view of Rule 15 of Appendix No. 37, re-evaluation of Answer-Book and re-evaluation of Answer-Script are not permissible under any circumstance. It is further submitted that the learned Tribunal fell in error in holding that Rule 15 of Appendix 37 (Part-I) has been over-ruled by the Department itself vide Instruction dated 02.08.2010 in as much as, Instruction dated 02.08.2010 also clearly spells out that in cases in which all the answers were evaluated, there is no need to consider the request for re-evaluation and such request merits rejection at the initial stage itself.
(3.) Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent has submitted that admittedly, marks awarded to the applicant in Paper-II and Paper-III have been raised without disclosing the necessary details. In similar circumstance in O.A. No. 649 of 2008, O.A. No. 146 of 2009 as also in O.A. No. 255 of 2011, the prayer for re-evaluation of the Answer-Sheets by an independent examiner has been allowed by the Tribunal and therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. It is further submitted that in view of the Instruction dated 02.08.2010, in so far as, the grievance raised by the applicant/respondent for re-evaluation of Answer-Sheets of Paper-II and Paper-III is concerned, it is covered under Clause i, ii and iii of the said Instruction.;