N. LOKNATHAMversusCHAIRMAN, TELECOM COMMISSION & ORS.

                         [2008] 6 S.C.R. 857

~
                          N. LOKNATHAM                            A
                                 v.
          CHAIRMAN, TELE-COM. COMMISSION & ORS.
                (Civil Appeal No. 2896 of 2008)
                          APRIL 22, 2008
                                                                  B
             (S.B. SINHA AND V.S. SIRPURKAR, JJ.)

           Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Jurisdiction- Junior
    ·Accounts Officer Part-II departmental examination - Questions
     framed out of the prescribed syllabus - Unsuccessful c
     candidates filing original application for awarding minimum
     qualifying marks -Allowed by tribunal- Jurisdiction of 1ribunal
     in awarding such relief - Challenge to ~ Allowed by High
     Court- Correctness of- Held: Tribunal, in terms of provisions
     under 1985 Act, exercises a limited jurisdiction - Candidates
     in question are experienced employees who knew the purport D
+    and object of holding departmental tests - They should be
     thorough with the rules, procedure etc. - Even if some
     ambiguity was there in the syllabus/in framing questions, it
     would have been for an expert to clear the same - In regard
     to questions framed out of syllabus, only those candidates E
     who could not answer the same might have been entitled to
     any relief - However, no such relief could have been granted
     by the tribunal on assumption that the appellant could not
     prepare well owing to some misunderstanding in regard to
     extent of the syllabus - Moreover, incumbent in question F
     appeared again in the subsequent examination but did not
     qualify the same - The principle of estoppel would apply in
     his case - Thus, Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction in granting
     the relief - Jurisdiction of Administrative Tribunal - Exercise
     of - Limitation - Principle of estoppel - Applicability of - G
     Service law - Selection.
        Appellant and other employees appeared in Jr.
    Accounts Officer Part-II departmental examination and
    were declared unsuccessful. They filed an original
                              857                                 H
    858      SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2008] 6 S.C.R.


A application before the Central Administrative Tribunal
  alleging that certain questions in one of the question paper
  were framed out of the prescribed syllabus, praying for
  directions against the respondents to award minimum
  qualifying marks in the said paper. The application was
B allowed by the Tribunal. Respondents filed a writ petition,
  which was allowed by the High Court. Hence the present
  appeal.
        Appellant-unsuccessful candidates contended that
  the syllabus of first paper of Jr. Accounts Officer, Part-II
C Examination Paper-IX comprises of General Principles
  and Cash; and that the General Principles are dealt with
  in Chapter 2 of the prescribed book and the syllabus
  relating to cash is dealt with in Chapter 5 and in that view
  of the matter, no question out of the said syllabus should
D have been framed.
       Respondents submitted 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; and that
E wherever the State intended to prescribe a particular
  Chapter, the same had categorically been mentioned in
  the syllabus.
          Dismissing the appeal, the Court
F        HELD: 1.1 The Tribunal, in terms of the provisions of
    the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 exercises a limited
    jurisdiction. (Para - 10) [863-F]
       1.2 Appellants are experienced employees. They
G 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. (Para -
  16) [866-E, F]
H
      N. LOKNATHAM v. CHAIRMAN, TELE-COM.                   859
               COMMISSION & ORS.

     Kanpur University, Through Vice-Chancellor & Ors. vs. A
Samir Gupta & Ors. (1983) 3 SCC 309; P.K. Ve/son & Ors. vs.
Union of India & Ors. (2005) 11 SCC 192 and Manish Ujwal &
Ors. vs. Maharishi Dayanand Saraswati University & Ors.
(2005) 13 sec 744 - distinguished.
      1.3 For performing the functions in a more                   8
responsible position, the employees 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. The cadre of Junior Accounts              C
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
must have sufficient knowledge as regards the procedure
pertaining to the Account Code, Treasury Rules, Financial          D
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                E
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.         F
(Para - 17) [866-G, H; 867-A, B, C]
     1.4 The appellant 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 G
jurisdiction in passing its order allowing the original
application. (Para - 18) [867-C, DJ
    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
2896 of 2008.
                                                                   H
    860        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2008] 6 S.C.R.


A        From the final Judgment and Order dated 16.06.2006 of
    the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in
    W.P. No. 20914 of 2004.
          M.N. Rao, T.N. Rao, Manjeet Kirpal and Paramjeet Singh
    for the Appellant.
B
          Shalini Kumar and Neeru Vaid for the Respondents.
          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
          S.B. SINHA, J. 1. Leave granted.
C       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
D 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)
E         2. P. & T FHB Volume Ill (Parts I, II and Ill)
          3. P. &T FHB Volume IV
          4. P. &T Manual Vol-X
          5. P. & T Manual Vol-XIV
F
          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"
G        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.
H
             N. LOKNATHAM v. CHAIRMAN, TELE-COM.                       861
               COMMISSION & ORS. [S.S. SINHA, J.]

          Our attention in this behalf has been drawn to the following       A
     chart:

     "Question        Chapter No./Name             Rules       Marks
        No.                                                    Allotted
      1(b)          Xl-Contigent charges             344          5          B
      2(a)          XIII-Loans and Advances       GID under       10
                    to Govt servants              Rule 410
      2(b)          XIII-Loans and Advances          424          10
                    to Govt servants
      3.            XI II-Loans and Advances      GID under       20         c
                    to Govt servants              Rule 390
                    (GID-1 payment of
                    Advance to contractors)
                    (GID-2Advance payment
                    to private Firms for supply                              D
                    of stores/Services &
·+                  Maintenance of Machines)
      5.            VII-Revenue and               Under D.G.      20
                    Miscellaneous Receipts         Orders

      Total Marks out of Syllabus                                65"         E

          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        F
 ~   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 G
     Administrative Tribunal questioning the right of the respondents
     to prescribe questions in paper IX o.f JAP - 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          H
    862       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2008] 6 S.C.R.


A 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 Id. Counsel for the respondents that another
          examination has already taken place for JAO Part-II, in
B         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,
c         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
D         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 minimum qualifying marks in other papers
          besides Paper-IX, would as a result not get the benefit of
E         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
F         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."
G
         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
H said order dated 23.4.2006. By reason of the impugned order
          N. LOKNATHAM v. CHAIRMAN, TELE-COM.                     863
            COMMISSION & ORS. [S.B. SINHA, J.]

    dated 16.6.2006, the said writ petition has been allowed.             A
          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        B
    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       c
    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
                                                                          D
~
    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      E
    '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          F
    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    G
    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
                                                                          H
    864         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2008) 6 S.C.R.


A paper in the subsequent examinations.
          The marks obtained by the appellant are as under :
                            "P-Vll     P-Vlll    P-IX    P-X     P-Xl
     1. N. Lokandaham Out of 100        100      100     100     100
B
                              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 Ill which reads as under:
c         "17 ... 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,
D               vouchers etc., and pre check of claims.
          (c)   To render general assistance and advice to the
                Divisional Engineer in all matters relating to accounts
                and budget estimates or to the operation of financial
E               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
F 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
G         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
H         students in U.P. Those text-book5 leave no room for doubt
             N. LOKNATHAM v. CHAIRMAN, TELE-COM.                       865
               COMMISSION & ORS. [S.B. SINHA, J.]
>           that the answer given by the students is correct and the           A
            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 8
            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         c
       jurisdiction of the Superior Court. It does not advance the case
       of the appellant.
             14. PK. Ve/son & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. [(2005) 11
       sec 192] was rendered in the peculiar facts and circumstances           D
        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            E
       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 CentralAdministrative Tribunal
       has the requisite jurisdiction to issue a direction for consideration   F
       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 G
       were palpably and demonstrably erroneous. ltwas 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
                                                                               H
    866        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2008) 6 S.C.R.


A          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
8         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 despite giving correct answer, the student
c         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
D
          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
E         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
F 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
G 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
H of Assistant Accounts Officer, Accounts Officer and Senior
      N. LOKNATHAM v. CHAIRMAN, TELE-COM.                    867
        COMMISSION & ORS. [S.S. SINHA, J.]
Accounts Officers. Officers belonging to the said cadre A
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 B
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 c
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 D
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         E
dismissed accordingly with no orders as to costs.
S.K.S.                                       Appeal dismissed