Mr. V S R Krishna, Adv v. SH JASPREET DHINGRA AND ORS on 29 Jul 2017

Judgment

1. The respondents participated in a Limited Departmental Competitive Examination1 held on 29 July 2017, for promotion from the Grade of Senior Maintainer/Head Maintainer in the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation2 to the grade of Junior Engineer (Electrical). The examination consisted of two papers. The papers were in Multiple Choice Questions3 format. There were 100 MCQs in Paper-I and 40 MCQs in Paper-II, making a total of 140 MCQs. Each question 1 “LDCE” hereinafter 2 “DMRC” hereinafter 3 MCQ W.P.(C) 1810/2025 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:21.02.2025 19:06:40 carried ½ mark. The total marks of both the papers were, therefore, 70.

2. 60% of the total marks of 70, i.e. 42 marks, was fixed as the minimum qualifying mark for a candidate to be entitled to promotion.

3. The respondents contended that they had answered 84 questions correctly and had, therefore, been awarded 42 marks. 42 being the qualifying marks, the respondents had qualified the examination.

5. This position is undisputed. Thereafter, certain candidates represented to the DMRC, stating that Q. 100 in Paper-I was incorrect, as printed. The said question reads thus: “100. Replacing a 400 W HPMV4 with 250 V HPSV5 lamp in street lighting operate for 4000 Hours per annum will result in annual energy savings of: (a) 600 kWH (b) 300 kWH (c) 150 kWH (d) 1000 kWH”

6. The candidates who represented appear to have objected to the reference of the wattage, in respect of the HPSV lamp, in the question, as “250 V”. According to them, “250V” should have read “250W”. 4 High Pressure Mercury Vapour 5 High Pressure Sodium Vapour W.P.(C) 1810/2025 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:21.02.2025 19:06:40

7. We may note, here, that there is – as there cannot be – no real dispute on this. It is correct that the use of “250V” in Q. 100 was incorrect and ought to have read “250W”. It is a matter of elementary knowledge that wattage of a lamp is in Watts and not in Volts. This is also apparent from the fact that in respect of the HPMV lamp, the wattage was shown as “400 W”. One was not required, therefore, to be a physics pundit to discern that, in the question, “250 W” had been mistyped as “250 V”.

8. Mr V.S.R. Krishna, learned Counsel for the petitioner DMRC advanced, at one stage of the proceedings, a faint submission that, at times, trick questions also figure in question papers. It was never DMRC’s contention that Q 100 was meant to be a trick question, and we are not prepared to countenance such a submission now. Even otherwise, trick questions are those which contain subtle niceties which might be missed by all except those who attempt the paper with careful concentration. It would be unfair to mistype “W” as “V”, with a view to posing a trick question. In any event, as that was never the

case of the DMRC before the Tribunal – and, to be fair to him, Mr. Krishna too did not labour the submission beyond a point, we need not dwell further on that aspect.

9. Understanding “250 V”, in Q. 100, as “250 W” mistyped, the respondents answered the question correctly.

10. That, if “250 V” were to be read as “250 W” in Q. 100, the W.P.(C) 1810/2025 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:21.02.2025 19:06:40 respondents’ answers were correct, is also not disputed.

11. However, based on the aforenoted representation received by it, the DMRC took a decision to delete Q. 100 entirely from the question paper and to grant no marks to anyone who attempted the question. The result was that candidates such as the respondents, who had correctly attempted the question and had initially been granted ½ mark for their attempt, were awarded zero.

12. Pursuant to a query under the Right to Information Act, 20056, the respondents were informed that the petitioner had (i) deleted Q. 100, thereby reducing the number of questions in Paper I to 99, (ii) maintained the total marks for Paper I as 50, and (iii) maintained the qualifying cut off as 42.

13. Cutting a long story short, the result was that the respondents fell short of the minimum qualifying marks by ½ mark, and, therefore, were treated as not having qualified in the papers and, therefore, not eligible for appointment.

14. Aggrieved by the aforesaid act of the petitioners, the candidates approached the Central Administrative Tribunal7 by way of OA 390/20188. 6 “the RTI Act” hereinafter 7 “the Tribunal” hereinafter 8 Jaspreet Dhingra & Ors v DMRC & Ors W.P.(C) 1810/2025 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:21.02.2025 19:06:40

15. By judgment dated 29 November 2024, the Tribunal has allowed the OA, following the judgments of the Supreme Court in Abhijit Sen v State of UP9 and Guru Nanak Dev University v Saumil Garg10.

16. Aggrieved by the judgment of the Tribunal, the DMRC has petitioned this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

17. We have heard Mr. V S R Krishna, learned Counsel for the petitioners, at considerable length. Analysis

18. The impugned judgment notes the manner in which the DMRC proceeded, after their decision to delete the aforesaid question, as disclosed to the respondents under the RTI Act. In that connection, para 4 of the judgment may be reproduced as under: The learned counsel of the applicants stated that DMRC “4. had deleted one question (Q. No. 100) of Paper-I (which had a small printing error) from computation of marks. The same is reproduced below:- “100. Replacing a 400 W HPMV with 250 V HPSV lamp in street lighting operate for 4000 Hours per annum will result in annual energy savings of: (a) 600 kWH (b) 300 kWH (c) 150 kWH (d) 1000 kWH The error lies in the capacity mentioned for the changed lamp. The