Add Tribune As Your Trusted Source
TrendingVideosIndia
Opinions | CommentEditorialsThe MiddleLetters to the EditorReflections
UPSC | Exam ScheduleExam Mentor
State | Himachal PradeshPunjabJammu & KashmirHaryanaChhattisgarhMadhya PradeshRajasthanUttarakhandUttar Pradesh
City | ChandigarhAmritsarJalandharLudhianaDelhiPatialaBathindaShaharnama
World | ChinaUnited StatesPakistan
Diaspora
Features | The Tribune ScienceTime CapsuleSpectrumIn-DepthTravelFood
Business | My MoneyAutoZone
News Columns | Straight DriveCanada CallingLondon LetterKashmir AngleJammu JournalInside the CapitalHimachal CallingHill ViewBenchmark
Don't Miss
Advertisement

Criteria for exam cannot be changed without corrigendum, rules Tribunal

Quashes PGI’s selection process for promotion to junior accounts officer
The Chandigarh bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal has quashed PGI’s orders. File

Unlock Exclusive Insights with The Tribune Premium

Take your experience further with Premium access. Thought-provoking Opinions, Expert Analysis, In-depth Insights and other Member Only Benefits
Yearly Premium ₹999 ₹349/Year
Yearly Premium $49 $24.99/Year
Advertisement

It is an established legal proposition that once the notice for recruitment or any examination has been issued, the criteria cannot be changed midway without issuing a corrigendum or a notification to inform the candidates.

Advertisement

While observing this, the Chandigarh bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal has quashed PGI’s orders rejecting the claims of two employees for grant of promotion as junior accounts officer. The Tribunal also directed the respondents to consider the cases of the applicants on the criteria issued at the time of notification for examination.

Advertisement

Two employees, auditor-cum-stock verifier Ashish Sehgal and junior auditor Manvinder Kaur, in the applications filed before the Tribunal through advocate Rohit Seth prayed to quash the order dated December 19, 2018, whereby PGI rejected the request of grant applicants.

They also prayed to quash examination result dated August 6, 2018.

The applicants said that they joined the department in 1998 and were to be tp the post of junior accounts officer as per prevalent Recruitment Rules By way of Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE).

Advertisement

The rules provided for a candidate qualifyingwith overall passing marks of 40 per cent in the exam that comprised two tests. They, however, alleged that the respondents (PGI) changed the criteria to obtain 40 percent marks in each individual test but did not communicate the change.

The respondents said the candidates were rejected as did not secure 40 per cent marks in each paper individually, adding that the practice of scoring 40 per cent marks in each paper was being followed in all the departmental competitive exams.

After hearing of the arguments, the Tribunal said the respondents have failed to produce any such document on record whereby all the competing candidates were informed about the change in criteria, adding that it was clear that the respondents had not followed a transparent procedure.

“It is established legal proposition that once the notice for recruitment or any examination has been issued, midway the criteria cannot be changed without issuing corrigendum / notification to that effect for the information and fair play for all,” it added.

The respondents were directed to consider the cases of the applicants on the criteria which was issued at the time of notification and, if found eligible, to be considered for promotion.

Advertisement
Show comments
Advertisement