Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (BSNL), challenged the judgment and order dated 22 February 2012 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) in Original Application Nos. 823 and 824 of 2010. The CAT had directed the Corporate Office of BSNL to constitute a committee of three experts to consider whether the respondents (employees) were entitled to proportionate marks for Question No.1 in Paper V and whether they should be given marks for Question No.2, as the question setter had committed an error and issued a clarification/fresh key after the examination. The CAT also directed that the committee keep in view the principles laid down in Sanjay Singh v. U.P. Public Service Commission. The petitioners argued that the CAT exceeded its jurisdiction by directing revaluation, which was barred by rules. The High Court examined the CAT's order and found that it did not direct revaluation but only directed an expert committee to assess whether proportionate marks should be awarded for defective questions. The court held that such a direction is within CAT's jurisdiction and does not violate the bar on revaluation. The court also noted that the CAT had not directed revaluation of all answers but only consideration of specific questions where the question setter admitted error. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the CAT's order.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Jurisdiction of CAT - Revaluation of Answer Papers - CAT cannot order revaluation where rules bar it, but can direct an expert committee to assess whether proportionate marks should be awarded for defective questions - The court held that the CAT's direction to constitute a committee of experts to consider awarding proportionate marks for questions where the question setter committed an error does not amount to revaluation and is within CAT's jurisdiction (Paras 1-10). B) Service Law - Promotion Examination - Error in Question Paper - Where the question setter admits error and issues a fresh key after examination, candidates may be entitled to proportionate marks - The court held that the principles from Sanjay Singh v. U.P. Public Service Commission apply, and an expert committee should decide the matter (Paras 2-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) exceeded its jurisdiction by directing revaluation of answer papers in a promotion examination, when the rules specifically barred revaluation.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the CAT order dated 22 February 2012.
Law Points
- Revaluation of answer papers is barred by rules
- but CAT can direct expert committee to assess disputed questions where error by question setter is apparent
- CAT cannot order revaluation but can direct consideration of proportionate marks for defective questions
- Principles from Sanjay Singh v. U.P. Public Service Commission applied
