Union Of India vs Bharat Lal Patel
2025 Latest Caselaw 2168 Chatt

Chattisgarh High Court

Union Of India vs Bharat Lal Patel on 27 February, 2025

Author: Rajani Dubey

Bench: Rajani Dubey

                                                1




                                                                 2025:CGHC:9870-DB
Digitally signed
by RAVVA UTTEJ
KUMAR RAJU
Date: 2025.03.04                                                    NAFR
10:28:30 +0530
                      HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                                     WPS No. 1274 of 2025


           1. Union of India, Through the Secretary, Railway Board, ministry of
              Railways, Rail Bhawan, Raisena Road, Rafi marg, New Delhi-110001
           2. General Manager, South East Central Railway, New GM Building,
              Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) 492004
           3. Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, GM office Complex, South East
              Central Railway, Bilaspur, (Chhattisgarh) 495004
           4. Assistant Personnel Officer, South East Central Railway, Bilaspur
              (Chhattisgarh) 495004
                                                                         ---- Petitioners
                                             Versus
             Bharat Lal Patel, S/o. Shri Hukumat Singh Patel, Aged About 41 Years,
              presently working as Loco Pilot/ SECR/BSP, R/o Qtr N. 54/A
              Chandralok Colony, Near Shani Mandir, Rajkishore Nagar, Bilaspur,
              Chhattisgarh- 495001
                                                                     ---- Respondent


        For Petitioners        :   Mr. Palash Tiwari, Advocate


                             Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey,J.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput, J.

Order on Board Per Rajani Dubey, J.

27.02.2025

1. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition under Article 226

of the Constitution of India against the respondent wherein the

petitioners have challenged the order dated 25/09/2024, passed by the

learned Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) in O.A. No.

203/1125/2015 of 2015 in which the learned CAT has directed to re-

determine the panel based on written marks obtained by the

candidates in examination after constituting small committee of

experts for the same.

2. Brief facts of the case, as adumbrated by the petitioners, are that the

petitioners have filed the instant petition on the grounds that the

Petitioner (SECR) had issued a notification No. 11/2024 on 29/05/2014

vide ANNEXURE-P/2 in connection with the selection for promotion of

Loco Inspector in scale PB-2, GP-4600(Rs.9300-34800) of Mechanical

Department through departmental promotion process. The petitioners

have conducted the written examination and then results were

declared on 14/10/2024 vide ANNEXURE-P/3. Thereafter, only 4

candidates have been impaneled for the post of Loco Inspector

whereas, marks of other candidates were disclosed on 19/12/2014. A

complaint letter/Objection was raised by the respondent regarding

evaluation process of the answer sheet alleging discrepancies in

different questions vide ANNEXURE-P/5. Consequently, a revised

model answer key was prepared and the marks of the candidates were

re-casted accordingly. Despite this adjustment, the respondent could

not meet the qualifying marks as per the applicable rules and

guidelines. That, in response to letter dated 23/03/2015 the petitioners

stated that there is no provision available in context to re-evaluation of

answer sheets vide ANNEXURE-P/6. Being aggrieved by the

aforementioned letter the respondent challenged the same before

learned Central Administrative Tribunal vide Original Application No.

203/1125/2015. That, the learned CAT disregarded the fundamental

principle of law that Courts, in the exercise of judicial review, should not

substitute their judgment for that of an expert panel entrusted with

evaluating answer sheets. Hence, this petition for the following reliefs:

"a. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the promotion case of petitioner for its kind perusal. b. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to Quash/Set-aside the judgment passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal on 25/09/2024 in O.A. No. 203/1125/2015 (Annexure- P/1).

c. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, as if may deem fit and appropriate.

d. Cost of the petition may also be given."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned CAT

allowed the application of the respondent without any sufficient ground.

The learned CAT has failed to identify or specify as to what error has

been committed by the petitioners in evaluating the answer sheets. The

selected candidates are essential parties to the original application as

they would be directly affected in the event of respondent's success, as

such the impugned order passed by the learned CAT is illegal and

contrary to law. He further submits that the scope of judicial review very

is limited by the Courts in adjudicating technical questions. Apart from

it, the candidate/respondent who has failed to even qualify in an

examination should be precluded from challenging the validity or

veracity of the examination process when the entire selection process

was conducted by the Railway Board itself very fairly. Therefore, the

instant petition deserves to be allowed.

4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the material

available on record.

5. It is clear from the impugned order (Annexure-P/1) that the respondent

filed application against his evaluation in the written examination for

promotion through selection to the post of Loco Inspector for 07 posts

(4 UR 2 SC and 1 ST) and the learned CAT allowed the application of

the respondent and directed the petitioners to redetermine the panel

based on written marks obtained by the candidates in the examination

after constituting a small committee of experts for the same.

6. It is clear from para 3.4 of the impugned order that the respondent

alleges that as many as ten answers to the objective type questions

were incorrect in the model answer sheet, which the respondent had

marked correct as per the Operators Manual issued by the Diesel

Training Centre, South Western Railway, Indian Railway (Open Line),

General Rules 1976 and the Accident Manual.

7. The learned CAT after considering all objections of the

applicant/respondent observed in paras 8 & 9 as under:-

"8. It is settled law that the statute does not permit re- evaluation or scrutiny of an answer sheet and the Court should not at all re-evaluate or scrutinize the answer sheets of a candidate except in the cases where material error has been committed. However, in the present case, we find that there are clearly certain indiscrepancies in awarding marks to the applicants. The applicants had raised specific queries and made allegations regarding award of marks to them. Thus, it was incumbent on the authorities to verify the claim of the applicants and revisit the whole issue with a view to neutralizing the effect of such erroneous evaluation leading to non empanelment of a deserving candidate in the final select list. It is also not the case where the principle of estoppels arises, as from the record itself, it is abundantly clear that there are sufficient materials placed before us to

suggest the irregularities in awarding marks to the applicants. The applicants have filed the copy of the relevant partition of the study material of the approved books (Annexure A-4), as per which, they state that their answers to the concerning questions were incorrect. This fact has not been refuted by the respondents in their reply. Thus, we are bound to believe with the reasoning detailed by the applicants that their answer sheets have not been evaluated properly.

9.In the result, both this Original Applications are allowed. The respondents are directed to re-determine the panel based on written marks obtained by the candidates in examination after constituting a small committee of experts for the same This exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs."

8. It is evident from the the impugned order that upon the objections of

the respondent, the learned CAT only directed the petitioners to re-

determine the panel based on written marks obtained by the

candidates in the examination after constituting a small committee of

the experts of the same, as such we do not find any illegality or

irregularity in this order. Inasmuch as It is also evident from the

impugned order that the petitioners have not denied the allegation

levelled by the respondent in their reply, thus so we are not inclined to

interfere in this order.

9. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed without issuing notice to the

respondent.

                              Sd/-                                    Sd/-

                        (Rajani Dubey)                        (Sachin Singh Rajput)
                           Judge                                   Judge
U. K. Raju