Re-evaluation of marks in the absence of any provision for it in the relevant Rules cannot be claimed as a matter of right, and academic matters are best left to academics.

JUDGMENT

Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J. - The petition, (i) impugns the order dated 14th December, 2020 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Principal Bench, Delhi of dismissal of OA No.2059/2020 preferred by the petitioner; and, (ii) seeks mandamus to the respondents Staff Selection Commission (SCC) and Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Government of India, to grant the qualifying marks to the petitioner in the Computer Proficiency Test (CPT) (Module-II) and to consequently grant the requisite post as opted by the petitioner.

2. The petitioner filed the OA No.2059/2020, pleading that (i) the petitioner applied for Combined Graduate Level Examination-2017, under the unreserved and orthopedically handicapped category ; (ii) as per the result of the said examination declared on 15th November, 2019, the petitioner was selected for the post of Auditor in the Department / Offices of Comptroller & Auditor General of India; (iii) however as per the post preference opted by the petitioner, had the petitioner cleared the CPT Module with 100 qualifying marks, as per his category, he would have become eligible for the post of Inspector (Central Excise/GST); (iv) the CPT comprises of three modules i.e. word processing, spreadsheet and generation of slides; (v) being not satisfied with the result of the CPT, the petitioner earlier filed W.P.(C) No.2322/2020 in this Court, which, on objection being taken by the respondents as to the very maintainability thereof in view of the alternate remedy of approaching CAT being available, was not pressed and was ordered to be treated as a representation of the petitioner and directed to be decided within four weeks thereof; (vi) the said representation was disposed of vide order dated 22nd July, 2020, stating that, (a) the petitioner had secured 97 marks in the CPT, having scored 35 marks in Module-II and 62 marks in Module-III; (b) the cut-off in Module-II and Module-III was fixed as 100 marks, for the category to which the petitioner belongs; (c) since the petitioner did not secure the cutoff marks, he was declared not qualified in the CPT and was hence ineligible for certain categories of posts; (d) the petitioner had requested for re-evaluation of answer script of CPT (Module-II); (e) the petitioner, vide letters dated 20th January, 2020 and 5th February, 2020 was informed that the CPT answer script of all candidates are evaluated by subject experts and the request for re-evaluation could not be entertained; (f) in pursuance to the order dated 2 nd March, 2020 in W.P.(C) No.2322/2020, the answer scripts of the petitioner were re-examined in consultation with the subject expert and the subject expert, in his / her report had opined that evaluation of CPT (Module-II) answer script of the petitioner was in order and did not deserve any revision; (vii) the petitioner sought the report of re-evaluation through the medium of Right to Information Act, 2005; (viii) the reevaluation, as done, was in contradiction with the questions asked in the CPT qualifying module and contrary even to the evaluation on the basis of model answers provided by the respondent No. 1 SSC itself; (ix) though the petitioner had been asked to join the office of Accountant General (Audit), Chhattisgarh by 30th June, 2020, but had sought extension thereof; (x) the petitioner challenged the order dated 22nd July, 2020 supra qua his representation, by filing W.P.(C) No.7244/2020 in this Court but which was dismissed on 30th September, 2020 with liberty to the petitioner to approach CAT; (xi) the representation of the petitioner pursuant to directions contained in order dated 2nd March, 2020 in W.P.(C) No.2322/2020 had been decided in an arbitrary, non-reasoned and illegal manner; (xii) as per the re-evaluation report, the deduction of 30 marks is wrong and without any explanation; (xiii) once an 'absolute' formula is applied in MS Excel sheet, the same does not and by the very definition of 'absolute', cannot, pro