CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

PRINCIAL BENCH

OA 395/2017

Reserved on: 18.12.2019

Pronounced on: 08.01.2020

Hon’ble Mr.S.N.Terdal, Member (J)

Hon’ble Mr. A.K.Bishnoi, Member (A)

Reena

D/o Shri Nafe Singh,

Aged about 35 years

R/o Vill-Bamroli,

P.O Dhool Siras, Dwarka,

Sector-28, New Delhi-77

Presently working as Guest Teacher

Uder DOE(Eng) Group ‘B’.

… Applicant

(By Advocate: Mr. Ranjit Sharma )

VERSUS

1. Govt. of N.C.T of Delhi

Through the Principal Secretary,

Department of Education,

Old Secretariat, Delhi-54.

2. Director of Education,

Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi

Department of Education,

Old Secretariat, Delhi-54.

3. Delhi Subordinates Services Selection

Board (DSSSB), through its Secretary,

FC-18, Institutional Area, Karkardooma,

Delhi-92.

… Respondents

(By Advocate: Ms. Sangita Rai )

OA 395/2017

2

O R D E R

(Hon’ble Mr. S.N.Terdal, Member (J):

We have heard Mr. Ranjit Sharma, counsel for applicant and

Ms. Sangita Rai, counsel for respondents, perused the pleadings

and all documents produced by both the parties.

2. In this OA, the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:

“i.

direct the respondents to correct the answer of question

no.67 of ‘C’ Set Question paper and accordingly, give

correct marking in favour of the Applicant after checking

her answer sheet quashing Revised Answer key dt.

10.07.2015 and notice dt. 1.3.2016 (Annexures A1 &

A2 supra) so far as question No. 67 is concerned;

ii.

direct the respondents to select and issue appointment

order to the Applicant as TGT (Eng) under the

Directorate of Education, Govt. of NCT of Delhi after

verification of her documents;

AND/OR

iii.

pass such other order/s as may be deemed fit and

proper.”

3.

The relevant facts of the case are that in response to the

advertisement for filling up the vacancies for the post of TGT (English)

in the respondent-Government under the post code 107/2012 and

05/2013, the applicant participated. Her case is that with respect to

question No. 67 in set C question paper she had answered correctly as

per the original/ draft answer key circulated by the respondents. But,

however, when the final answer keys were uploaded on 11.05.2015

and subsequently on 10.07.2015, she got less marks as the said

OA 395/2017

3

answer key was adjudged as wrong, as a result she not only lost

one marks for wrong answer key, but in addition lost .25 marks

also, brining her score less then the cut off marks for OBC

category.

4. The counsel for the applicant vehemently and strenuously

submitted that what the applicant answered with respect to the

said question was the correct answer and that was the answer

given in the original/draft answer key to the said question and

he further submitted that the two revised answer keys circulated

later on 11.05.2015 and 10.07.2015 are wrong as per the

material relied upon by him and as such the relief prayed for in

his OA be granted. In support of his contention, the counsel for

the applicant relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme

Court in UPSC through its Chaiman & Anr. Vs. Rahul Singh

& Anr (Civil Appeal No. 5833 of 2018) and the order of this

Tribunal in OA No. 580/2019 with connected cases.

5. The

counsel

for

the

respondents

vehemently

and

strenuously submitted that as per the guidelines and as per the

rules draft answers keys were uploaded calling for objections and

the objections were referred to subject experts and on the basis

of the opinion of the subject experts final answer keys were

published on 11.05.2015 and as subsequently several objections

were also received and again following the above said procedure

OA 395/2017

4

they published the revised final answer key on 10.07.2015. The

applicant having not filed any objection in time and the experts

in the subject having given the answer key which are finally

uploaded and in the letter dated 11