http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  2896 of 2008

PETITIONER: N. Lokananandham

RESPONDENT: Chairman, Tele-Com. Commission & Ors.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 22/04/2008

BENCH: S.B. Sinha & V.S. Sirpurkar

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T REPORTABLE

CIVIL APPEAL NO.   2896       OF 2008 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.16640 of 2004)

S.B. Sinha, J.

1.      Leave granted.

2.      Appellant was at all material times a Junior Accounts Officer.  He had  passed Junior Accounts Officer Part-I examination held in 1998.  For further  promotion, he was required to appear in Junior Accounts Officer Part-II  examination.  It was held in December, 2000.  The syllabus for the said  examination consisted of nine papers.   Paper IX thereof was a theory paper with the following syllabus:  " 1.    P. & T FHB Volume I (General Principles  and cash) 2.      P. & T FHB Volume III (Parts I, II and III) 3.      P. & T FHB Volume IV 4.      P. & T Manual Vol-X 5.      P. & T Manual Vol-XIV 6.      Telecom Accounts Manual (Chapters 1 to  7 and 11) 7.      Books of Accounts Officer Forms, Vol. I 8.      Book of P & T Accounts Forms"

3.      Allegedly, questions in respect of 65 out of 100 marks were framed  out of the prescribed syllabus.  It is stated that question No. 1(b), 2(a), 2(b),  3 and 5 of paper IX were covered in F.B.H. Vol-1 under different chapters  which were not prescribed in the syllabus.         Our attention in this behalf has been drawn to the following chart :

"Question  No. Chapter No./Name Rules  Marks  Allotted 1(b) XI-Contigent charges 344 5 2(a) XIII-Loans and Advances  to Govt servants  GID

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

under  Rule 410 10 2(b) XIII-Loans and Advances  to Govt. servants  424 10 3. XIII-Loans and Advances  to Govt servants  (GID-1 payment of  Advance to contractors) (GID-2 Advance payment  to private Firms for supply  of stores/Services &  Maintenance of Machines)  GID  under  Rule 390 20 5. VII-Revenue and  Miscellaneous Receipts Under  D.G.  Orders  20 Total Marks out of Syllabus  65"

4.      Appellant did not pass the said examination.  He made a  representation for declaration of his results by a letter dated 25.9.2002.   

       It is stated that the Government issued directions pursuant whereto  they became entitled to obtain six grace marks in any one of the subjects for  being declared qualified in JAO-Part II examination. Despite grant of grace  marks, he did not qualify. 5.      Appellant filed an original application before the Central  Administrative Tribunal questioning the right of the respondents to prescribe  questions in paper IX of JAP \026 Part II examination 2000 out of the syllabus.  A direction was sought for against the respondents to award minimum  qualifying marks in that paper.   By reason of a judgment and order dated 23.4.2004, the Tribunal  allowed the said application directing : "Now since sufficient time has passed after the  examination held in December 2000 and we are  told by the ld. Counsel for the respondents that  another examination has already taken place for  JAO Part-II, in which all the applicants have  appeared for all the papers including Paper-IX, it  would not be advisable to hold any re-examination  in Paper-IX at this stage.  However, in the interest  of justice, it would be proper to award minimum  qualifying marks to each of the seven applicants,  namely, 33 marks in Paper-IX.  Since as per rules,  33% marks are to be obtained by the applicants in  each of the papers and 35 per cent marks in the  aggregate, the result would be her only 3  candidates, namely, N. Lokanadham, K.  Subrahamanyeswara Rao and I. Lakshmi would  pass all the papers, after being given minimum  pass marks in paper-IX and they will clear the JAO  Part-II Examination, but the remaining four  applicants of the two OAs who are short of the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

minimum qualifying marks in other papers besides  Paper-IX, would as a result not get the benefit of  passing the JAO Part-II Examination, after being  given the minimum pass marks in Paper-IX and  they will have to appear again for the JAO Part-II  Examination in future to clear all the papers. In the result, both the OAs stand disposed of with  the direction to the respondents to award all the  seven applicants the minimum qualifying marks in  Paper-IX i.e. 33 per cent marks within two weeks  from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and  to declare their results accordingly."

6.      Respondents sought extension of the said time which by an order  dated 8.7.2004 was allowed.   Respondent filed a writ petition before the High Court of Judicature of  Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad questioning the said order dated 23.4.2006.   By reason of the impugned order dated 16.6.2006, the said writ petition has  been allowed. 7.      Mr. M.N. Rao, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the  appellant, drew our attention to the syllabus contending that the first paper of  Paper-IX being P & T FHB Volume I comprises of General Principles and  Cash and, according to the learned counsel, General Principles are dealt with  in Chapter 2 and the syllabus relating to cash is dealt with in Chapter 5 and  in that view of the matter, no question out of the aforementioned syllabus  should have been framed.   8.      Ms. Shalini Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the  respondents, on the other hand, would submit that the words ’General  Principles and Cash’ must be understood in its etymological sense and not in  the context of their contents as contained in Chapter 2 and Chapter 5 thereof.   It was pointed out that whereover the State intended to prescribe a particular  Chapter, the same had categorically been mentioned in the syllabus. 9.      Our attention in this behalf has been drawn to Item No.6 of the  syllabus.  The syllabus contains reference to the books which includes  Financial Handbook.  It may be true that the words ’General Principles and  Cash’ have been mentioned but it might not be intended to be kept confined  to Chapter 2 and Chapter 5 of the said manual, as no other question was to  be framed from the said volume.   10.     The core question, however, would be as to whether the Tribunal had  the jurisdiction to issue the impugned directions.   The Tribunal, in terms of the provisions of the Administrative  Tribunals Act, 1985 exercises a limited jurisdiction.  Indisputably, a  candidate, in order to qualify in the JAO Part II examination is required not  only to secure 33 per cent marks in each paper but also to secure 35 per cent  marks in aggregate.  Rules of examination have been prescribed in terms  whereof only a candidate who secures 60 per cent of the marks in any of the  papers would be exempted from appearing in that particular paper in the  subsequent examinations.   The marks obtained by the appellant are as under :         "P-VII           P-VIII     P-IX        P-X          P-XI 1. N. Lokandaham        Out of 100      100     100     100     100         35      56      20      35      98" 11.     Respondents contend that the duties of the Accounts Officer have  been laid down in Rule 17 of Part-I of Financial Handbook Volume III  which reads as under : "17\005 The functions of Accounts Officers are  threefold : (a)     For the correct compliance of the Accounts  of the Division in accordance with the  prescribed rules. (b)     For applying preliminary checks to initial  accounts, vouchers etc., and pre check of  claims. (c)     To render general assistance and advice to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

the Divisional Engineer in all matters  relating to accounts and budget estimates or  to the operation of financial rules."

12.     Reliance has been placed by Mr. Rao on Kanpur University, Through  Vice-Chancellor & Ors. v. Samir Gupta & Ors. [(1983) 3 SCC 309], wherein  multiple choice objective type test was conducted.   Key-answers had been  supplied by the paper-setter.  It is in that connection this Court opined : "We agree that the key answer should be assumed  to be correct unless it is proved to be wrong and  that it should not be held to be wrong by an  inferential process of reasoning or by a process of  rationalization.  It must be clearly demonstrated to  be wrong, that is to say, it must be such as no  reasonable body of men well-versed in the  particular subject would regard as correct.  The  contention of the University is falsified in this case  by a large number of acknowledged text-books  which are commonly read by students in U.P.   Those text-books leave no room for doubt that the  answer given by the students is correct and the key  answer is incorrect."

       It was held :

"If this were a case of doubt, we would have  unquestionably preferred the key answer.  But if  the matter is beyond the realm of doubt, it would  be unfair to penalize the students for not giving an  answer which accords with the key answer, that is  to say, with an answer which is demonstrated to be  wrong."

13.     This decision itself demonstrates to show the limited jurisdiction of  the Superior Court.  It does not advance the case of the appellant. 14.     P.K. Velson & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. [(2005) 11 SCC 192]  was rendered in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.  It was a  case where several objective type questions were asked in the screening test  which were confusing and were not according to the model question paper  distributed earlier to them.           For the self same reasons, the said decision also does not render any  assistance to us.         Manish Ujwal & Ors. v. Maharishi Dayanand Saraswati University &  Ors. [(2005) 13 SCC 744] has been relied upon by Mr. Rao to contend that  the Central Administrative Tribunal has the requisite jurisdiction to issue a  direction for consideration of the representation of the aggrieved persons.         That case was one of those where again the key answers were  provided.   15.     The Court arrived at a finding that the key answers were palpably and  demonstrably erroneous.  It was in that context stated : "For the present, we say no more because there is  nothing on record as to how this error crept up in  giving the erroneous key answers and who was  negligent. At the same time, however, it is  necessary to note that the University and those  who prepare the key answers have to be very  careful and abundant caution is necessary in these  matters for more than one reason. We mention few  of those; first and paramount reason being the  welfare of the student as a wrong key answer can  result in the merit being made a casualty. One can  well understand the predicament of a young  student at the threshold of his or her career if

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5  

despite giving correct answer, the student suffers  as a result of wrong and demonstrably erroneous  key answers; the second reason is that the courts  are slow in interfering in educational matters  which, in turn, casts a higher responsibility on the  University while preparing the key answers; and  thirdly, in cases of doubt, the benefit goes in  favour of the University and not in favour of the  students. If this attitude of casual approach in  providing key answers is adopted by the persons  concerned, directions may have to be issued for  taking appropriate action, including disciplinary  action, against those responsible for wrong and  demonstrably erroneous key answers, but we  refrain from issuing such directions in the present  case."

16.     We are herein dealing with the cases of experienced employees. They  knew the significance of the departmental examination.  They were aware  what was expected of them. They knew the purport and object of holding  departmental tests.  It is furthermore not a case where key answers had been  provided which were found to be palpably wrong. 17.     For performing their functions in a more responsible position, they  were required to be thorough with the rules pertaining to all receipts and  expenditure of the Department and it is in that sense, the First Volume of  Financial Handbook deals with such transactions in general.  Indisputably,  the cadre of Junior Accounts Officer is the feeder post for promotion to the  cadre of Assistant Accounts Officer, Accounts Officer and Senior Accounts  Officers.  Officers belonging to the said cadre indisputably must have  sufficient knowledge as regards the procedure pertaining to the Account  Code, Treasury Rules, Financial Rules etc.  Furthermore, assuming there  was some ambiguity in the prescribed slabs, it would have been for an expert  body to clear the same and in the event it is found that any question has been  put out of syllabus, only those who could not answer the same might have  been entitled to any relief.  No relief in a case of this nature could have been  granted on assumptions.  It was not for the Tribunal to pass an order only on  the supposition that the appellant did not prepare themselves well owing to  some misunderstanding in regard to the extent of syllabus.   18.     We may furthermore notice that the appellant herein without any  demur whatsoever appeared in the subsequent examination.  He even did not  qualify therein.  The principle of estoppel would, therefore, apply in this  case. Tribunal had, thus, exceeded to its jurisdiction in passing its order  dated 23.4.2004. 19.     There is, therefore, no merit in the appeal.  It is dismissed accordingly  with no orders as to costs.