Post-computer evaluation of OMR sheet, manual re-scrutiny rejecting candidature for erasure/multiple answers is illegal; limited to 1/3rd mark deduction; delayed tampering plea without evidence arbitrary.

ORDER 

Per Justice Om Prakash VII, Member-J 

By means of this Original Application (OA), the applicant has sought the following relief(s):-

“(a) To issue an order or direction in the suitable nature directing the respondents to declare the result of the applicant under the OBC category and then provide him an appointment against the vacancies which notified under the Employment Notice No. 01/2010 dated 19.12.2010 alongwith all consequential benefits within specified period, which may be fixed by this Hon’ble Tribunal.

(b) To issue any order or direction to the respondents which the Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case

(c) To award the cost of the application to the applicant.”

2. The facts leading to this Original Application are that the Railway Recruitment Cell (RRC), North Central Railway (NCR), Allahabad issued the notification no. 1/2010 dated 19.12.2010 notifying 4692 Group ‘D’ posts in different categories by inviting the applications from the eligible candidates. In response to this, the applicant, being fully eligible for appointment on the post, in question, had applied for the Group ‘D’ post. After scrutiny, the call letters were issued to the eligible candidates including the applicant. The applicant appeared in the written examination wherein he was declared successful. The applicant was, thereafter, called for Physical test in which too the applicant was declared successful. The medical examination was also conducted by the authorities concerned in which also the applicant was declared successful. Thereafter, the applicant was called for documents verification wherein the applicant was appeared and get verified his educational certificates. The final result was declared by the respondent no.2 declaring 4470 candidates to be successful out of total notified vacancies of 4692 and as such 161 posts were remained vacant. According to the O.A., the result of the applicant was not declared.

2.1 Being aggrieved, the applicant sought information under Right to Information Act 2005 through application dated 12.8.2014, to which the authority concerned has informed the applicant stating therein that RRC is going to declare the remaining 161 pending result of the candidates very shortly. However, the respondents did not declare the result of pending candidates. Being dissatisfied, the applicant knocked the door of this Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 1296 of 2015, which came to be disposed of vide judgment and order dated 24.9.2015 directing the respondents to decide the claim of the applicant within a period of three months. When the order of this Tribunal was not complied with within the stipulated period of time, then he invoked contempt jurisdiction of this Tribunal by filing Contempt Petition. On receipt of contempt notice, the respondents have rejected the claim of the applicant vide order dated 29.9.2016, which is under challenge in the instant O.A.

3. Per-contra, the respondents have resisted the claim of the respondents by filing a detailed Counter Affidavit wherein they have stated that the RRC, NCR, Allahabad has advertised the notification vide EMP No. 01/2010 dated 19.12.2010 whereby 4692 Group ‘D’ post of different categories has been notified. Thereafter, call letters were issued to the eligible candidates including the applicant wherein the applicant has been declared successful. Having declared successful in written examination, the a