Compilation Vol 3 Corrected (1-943).pmd - Goa Public Service ...

Union Public Service Commission
2006 in which the petitioner appeared. According to him, he did very well as per his assessment. The
petitioner pleaded that he compared his answers with several other candidates who had not done
well, however, the petitioner has not been declared successful in the preliminary examination and has
not been called for main examination.
5. In the circumstances, the petitioner has challenged the examination setup which, according to
the petitioner, requires transparency. For the preliminary examination, the candidates are kept totally
in dark about their marks. According to the petitioner, he has a right to information about his marks.
6. The petitioner contended that to err is human and the probability of error and omission is very
strong in the examination system and in case the petitioner’s answer sheet is not re-evaluated, then one
full year and one chance of petitioner shall be wasted causing irreparable loss, unbearable pain and
frustration to him.
7. In the circumstances, petitioner seeks re-evaluation of his answer sheets and he is confident that
he would qualify for the main examination in case his answer sheet is re-evaluated and in any case the
answer sheet should be re-evaluated in the Court itself.
8. Learned counsel for respondent, Ms. Jyoti Singh, has raised a preliminary objection about the
maintainability of the writ petition. She contends that the jurisdiction in the circumstance under Sections
14 and 28 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 is with the Central Administrative Tribunal and not
with the High Court.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, contended that Article 323A of the Constitution
of India contemplated formation of administrative tribunals with respect to recruitment and condition
of service of persons appointed to the public service and post in connection with the affairs of the
Union and consequently the Central Administrative Tribunal under the powers of said Article dealt
only with the service conditions of the persons who have already been appointed to the public service
and post and not to the matters of the persons who have not been appointed.
10. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the definition of “appointment” as given in
Oxford English Reference Dictionary, Second Edition, Revised which is as under:
“Appointment: 1. an arrangement to meet at a specific time and place; 2)a) a post or
office available for applicants, or recently filled (took up the appointment on Monday); b)
a person appointed; c) the act or an instance of appointing esp. to a post; 3)a) furniture
fittings; b) equipment.”
19