Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 163 (GAU)

Union of India v. Rekha Moni Chutia

2015-02-11

AJIT SINGH, P.K.SAIKIA

body2015
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard the petitioner and the respondents. 2. The respondent appeared for the written test for selection to the post of assistant signal-and-telecommunication engineer (grade B) in the railways. It is said that the medical test is over and also police enquiry is over. 3. The counsel for the petitioner submits that viva voce test is yet to be completed to declare the final selection. 4. It is before the final selection that a complaint was lodged that the respondent had indulged in malpractice and got herself selected for the written examination. Based on the said complaint it appears that the petitioner has made enquiries and got the answer-sheet evaluated. 5. The evaluation report of the answer-sheet of the respondent is as follows. “(a) There has discrepancies in evaluation of answer sheet. (i) Marks awarded for the answer Q. No. 1(a) and (b) of Paper-I (Annexure E/11 to the report placed herewith) are also found irrational and much higher than the deserved mark for the answers. As such the answers written by Smt. Chutia against the two above mentioned questions suffered number of spelling mistakes, wrong wording, incomplete sentences, etc. (ii) Further Smt. Chutia answer to the Question No. 4(a) and (b) of Paper-II are also contained the number of spelling mistakes, wrong wording, incomplete sentences, etc., (paras 8 and 9 of Annexure E/22). Yet she was awarded 60% of the allotted marks which clearly indicate the marks were not properly awarded. (iii) Evidence of copying by Smt. Chutia is also evident in the answer to the Question No. 1(b), 4(a) and (b) of Paper-II due to omission of words and incomplete sentences. For that no one writing from his own memory could have committed such mistakes.” 6. The petitioner has cancelled the selection of the respondent. Respondent filed an application before the Central Administrative Tribunal by challenging the cancellation. The Central Administrative Tribunal found that the cancellation of the selection without notice and opportunity to the respondent is bad in law, therefore, set aside the cancellation and directed respondents to proceed with the process of promotion to the post of ASTE (Grade B) against the 30 per cent L DCE quota on the basis of the written examination held on 23.2.2013. The petitioner aggrieved by the said order has filed this petition. 7. The petitioner aggrieved by the said order has filed this petition. 7. The report of the evaluation of the answer-sheet does not disclose a substantial reason to upset the selection of the respondent in the written test. It is said that the answers to questions 1 and 2 are incomplete, there are spelling mistakes. The copying by Smt. Chutia is evident in respect of question No. 1B, 4A and 4B of paper II. Because of omission of words and incomplete sentence from the said omissions and discrepancies it is inferred that “no one writing from his own memory could have committed such mistake”. This is a wild inference. Merely because there is omission of some words and incomplete sentence, it cannot be inferred that it is a matter of copying. It may be a case of bona fide error in the evaluation that itself is not a ground to infer that illegal favour is shown in favour of the respondent in evaluation of the answer-sheet. In that view of the matter the petition is dismissed.