THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 22158 OF 2006 Dt: 4th March 2008 Between: B.Sambasiva Rao & others …Petitioners and The General Manager, Telecom District, BSNL, Vijayawada & others …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 22158 OF 2006 O R D E R: The petitioners are working as Telecom Technical Assistants (TTA), in the A.P. Circle of BSNL. The next higher post is Junior Technical Officer (JTO). 35% of the vacancies, in that cadre, are to be filed, by selecting candidates from TTA, on the basis of a written test. Such a test was held on 6.5.2000 and the results thereof, were announced on 7.9.2000. The petitioners did not get through the examination. About 5 years later, the petitioners made representations to the respondents, stating that the pattern of question paper, for the examination held on 6.5.2000, was different from the model paper published by the BSNL. Reference was also made to an order passed by the Ernakulam Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal, in a case filed by the Telecom Technical Assistants of Ernakulam Circle, complaining that the test was conducted with different syllabus and in a different pattern. It was stated that in pursuance of the directions issued by the Tribunal, certain grace marks were added to the candidates, who failed in the examination, and they prayed for extension of the same benefit. The Chief General Manager, 15th respondent herein, addressed letter dated 22.2.2006, informing the petitioners that the decision rendered by Ernakulam Bench of the CAT, cannot apply to the petitioners, since the examination was conducted in a completely decentralized manner by the respective Telecom Circles. The petitioners challenge the action of the respondents, in rejecting their contention, and seek a direction to the respondents, to extend the benefit of grace marks, for the examination conducted on 6.5.2000. They complain of discrimination and arbitrariness, on the part of the respondents. On behalf of the respondents, a counter affidavit is filed, denying the allegations of the petitioners. It is stated that the question paper for the examination conducted, for the purpose of selecting the candidates for the post of TTA, in the Ernakulam Circle, was found to be defective, whereas, no such mistakes were either pointed out, or found in the question paper for the examination, in which the petitioners appeared. It is urged that the writ petition cannot be maintained for more reasons than one, and that this court cannot sit as an Expert Body, to evaluate the correctness of the questions or answers, in the examination. Sri K. Venkateshwar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that even a bare comparison of the question paper prepared for the examination, conducted on 6.5.2000, and the model paper published by the respondents, clearly discloses that there is a clear variation in the pattern. He contends that the petitioners prepared themselves for the examination, hoping that they would be required to choose the multiple answers, as mentioned in the model paper, whereas, in the examination, the questions were framed, without any multiple answers. He submits that when relief in the form of adding grace marks was extended to the examinees in the Ernakulam Circle, there is no reason why such a benefit be not extended to the petitioners herein. Sri Y. Ravindra, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that except making a bald allegation that the question paper is defective, nothing substantial is pointed out. He contends that a specific case was made out before the Ernakulam Bench of the CAT, with reference to individual questions, and when the Department itself found that some questions were either out of syllabus, or did not contain proper answers, 8 grace marks were added, and that such a situation does not exist here. The examination for the purpose of selecting candidates to the extent of 35% of the vacancies in the post of JTO, in the AP Telecom Circle was held on 6.5.2000. The grievance of the petitioners is that the pattern and content of the question paper, for that examination, did not accord with the model paper. At the outset, it needs to be mentioned that the petitioners approached this court, at a belated stage, i.e. after lapse of 7 years from the date of conducting the examination. Nothing would be available for verification, at this stage. Secondly, except making a general allegation that the question paper was different from the model paper, it is not specifically pointed out as to why the question paper is defective. It is no doubt true that the Ernakulam Bench of the CAT directed the respondents before it, to consider the representation of the petitioners before it, in the context of anomalies in the question paper. On such verification, the Department itself found that some of the questions were not pertinent, and accordingly, decided to add 8 grace marks. The decision to add marks was that of the Department, and not taken by the Tribunal. There would have been some basis for the petitioners to seek any relief, had it been a case, where the petitioners were required to answer same question papers, as the candidates in Ernakulam Circle. It is not in dispute that different question papers were set for different Circles. Therefore, no similarity can be drawn among the question papers prepared for different Circles. At any rate, this court cannot act as an Expert Body, to evaluate the correctness, or otherwise of the question papers. In W.P.No.20914 of 2004, a Division Bench of this Court took the view that the Central Administrative Tribunal, or for that matter, this court, cannot act as an Expert Body, in this regard. That was in relation to the Junior Accounts Officers. A learned Single Judge dismissed W.P.No.6357 of 2006, filed in relation to a similar complaint, in respect of a test conducted in September 2003, for the post of JAOs. This court is not inclined to grant any relief to the petitioners. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ 4th March 2008 PAN