Karnataka High Court
Sri. Vinay Kumar vs Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation ... on 25 January, 2025
Author: S Sunil Dutt Yadav
Bench: S Sunil Dutt Yadav
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:3380
WP No.8208 of 2024
C/W WP No.28577 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV
WRIT PETITION NO.8208 OF 2024 (S-RES)
C/w.
WRIT PETITION NO.28577 OF 2023 (S-RES)
IN W.P.NO.8208/2024
BETWEEN:
SRI VINAY KUMAR
S/O H.G.KUMAR
29 YEARS,
R/A: NEW 17 (OLD NO.76),
3RD MODEL HOUSE STREET,
NEAR NAGASANDRA CIRCLE,
BASAVANAGUDI, BANGALORE SOUTH,
BANGALORE, KARNATAKA - 560 004.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. D.R. RAVISHANKAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SMT.SIRI RAJASHEKHAR, ADVOCATES)
Digitally
signed by AND:
VIDYA G R
Location: 1. BANGALORE METRO RAIL
HIGH COURT
OF CORPORATION LIMITED (BMRCL)
KARNATAKA BMTC COMPLEX, 3RD FLOOR,
K.H.ROAD, SHANTI NAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560 027.
REPTD. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
2. THE GENERAL MANAGER,
BANGALORE METRO RAIL
CORPORATION LIMITED,
BMTC COMPLEX 3RD FLOOR,
K.H.ROAD, SHANTI NAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560 027.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:3380
WP No.8208 of 2024
C/W WP No.28577 of 2023
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VIKRAM HULIGOL, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. K. KRISHNA, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950, PRAYING TO
A) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE
'PROVISIONAL SELECTED LIST AFTER PSYCHOMETRIC TEST
(MAIN LIST)' FOR THE PAST OF STATION CONTROLLER / TRAIN
OPERATOR' PUBLISHED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON THEIR
WEBSITE ON 16.12.2023, VIDE NOTIFICATION
NO.BMRCL/O&M/C-32065/R-02/2023, DATED. 22.03.2023, AT
ANNEXURE-L.
B) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH AND SET
ASIDE THE RESULT OF PSYCHOLOGICAL APTITUDE TEST-22ND
NOV 2023' FOR THE POST OF "STATION CONTROLLER /TRAIN
OPERATOR' DATED: NIL, PUBLISHED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
ON THEIR WEBSITE ON 16.12.2023, (ANNEXURE-M).
C) ISSUE A WRIT MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER
APPROPRIATE WRIT ORDER OR DIRECTION TO THE
RESPONDENT TO EITHER WITHDRAW THE RESULT OF THE
PSYCHOMETRIC TEST CONDUCTED ON 22.11.2023 FOR THE
PURPOSE OF RECRUITMENT TO THE POST OF STATION
CONTROLLER / TRAIN OPERATOR' OR CONDUCT
PSYCHOMETRIC TEST AFRESH; AND IN SO FOR AS PETITIONER
CONCERN.
NC: 2025:KHC:3380
BETWEEN:
1. MR. PAVAN K
S/O KUMARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
NEERAGUNDA VILLAGE,
SANEHALLI POST,
HOSADURGA TALUK
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 515.
2. MR. NAVEENKUMAR T.K.,
S/O SRI KARI GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
R/AT: THIMMASANDRA VILLAGE,
LALAGATA POST, CHANNAPATNA TALUK
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 160.
3. MR. RAKESHA P.
S/O SRI PARAMESHWARAPPA P
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
R/AT: DOOR NO.58,
T. GOPAGONDANAHALI,
MADIKECHILUR POST,
NYAMATHI TALUK,
DAVANAGERA DISTRICT - 577 216.
4. MR. VINAYAKUMAR N.
S/O SRI NINGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
R/AT: HORABAILU VILLAGE,
B.DODDERI POST,
SORABA TALUK,
SHIMOGA DISTRICT - 577 434.
5. MS. ASHWINI
D/O YOGENDRA
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
R/AT: #437 SECOND MAIN ROAD,
FIRST A CROSS MATHIKERE,
EXTENSION MATHIKERE,
NC: 2025:KHC:3380
BENGALURU - 560 054.
PERMANENT ADDRESS: POST JALASANGI,
HUMNABAD TALUK,
BIDAR DISTRICT - 585 418.
9. MR. MALLANAGOUDRA
HANUMANTHGOUDA
S/O SRI GOVINDAPPA M.,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
R/AT: MATTURU VILLAGE,
YARABALU POST,
HARAPANAHALLI TALUK,
VIJAYANAGARA DISTRICT - 583 137.
8. MRS. SUJATA
D/O SURYAPRAKASH
AGED 36 YEARS,
R/AT: #71, 3RD MAIN INCOME TAX LAYOUT,
CHANDRA LAYOUT, BENGALURU - 560 040.
9. MR. SALLAPURAM ERRISWAMY
S/O SRI S. LAKSHMANNA,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
R/AT: ROOM NO.G8/14,
SHANKAR TOWN HILLS,
TORANAGALLU P., SANDUR TALUK,
BELLARY (D) - 583 123.
10. MR. AJAY M.C.,
S/O SRI CHANDRU M.R.,
R/AT: MUDAGERE VILLAGE AND
POST: MALUR HOBLI,
CHANNAPATNA TALUK,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 160.
11. MR. RAVI KOLAR
S/O SRI PARASAPPA KOLAR,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
R/AT: PO: HUNGUNDA TALUK,
DISTRICT BAGALKOT - 587 118.
NC: 2025:KHC:3380
12. MR. BHEERAPPA IVANAGI
S/O SRI HUCHECHESAB,
AGED ABOUT 5 YEARS,
R/AT: KANAKAL VILLAGE,
KANKAL POST,
HUVIN HIPARAGI HOBALI,
BASAVAN BAGEWADI TALUK,
VIJAYAPURA DISTRICT - 586 203.
13. MS. KUSUMA A.M.
D/O SRI MAHALINGACHARI
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS,
R/AT: ANNAHALLI VILLAGE,
KEMBOOTHAGERE POST,
KASABA HOBLI,
MALAVALLI TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 430.
14. MR. HANUMANTHANAIK U
S/O UMESHANAIK
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
POOJARAHALLI THANDA,
KHANAHOSAHALLI HOBLI,
KUDLIGI TALUK,
VIJAYANAGARA DISTRICT - 583 218.
15. MRS. DIVYA B.
W/O LOKESHA
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
R/AT: KODAMBAHALLI VILLAGE AND
POST: CHANNAPATNA TALUK,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 138.
16. MS. RESHMA BADADALE
D/O SRI HANAMANT BADADALE,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
R/AT VAJRA HANUMAN
NAGAR BAGALKOT ROAD,
IBRAHIMPURA RAILWAY STATION
DISTRICT VIJAPURA,
VIJAYAPURA - 586 101.
NC: 2025:KHC:3380
17. MR. RAGHAVENDRA P
S/O PURUSHOTHAM
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
R/AT: NO.12, 2ND A CROSS,
C NAGAR, KURUBARAHALLI,
MAHALAKSHMI LAYOUT POST,
BANGALORE - 560 086.
18. MS. MADHUSHREE B.N.
D/O NAGARAJU
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
R/AT: BANAVARA VILLAGE,
GONIMARUR POST
SOMWARPET TALUK,
KODAGU DISTRICT - 571 236.
19. MR. ANKOSH
S/O SRI MALLIKARJUNA,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
R/AT:2/106 KANKATTA,
KANKATTA POST, HUMNABAD TALUK,
BIDAR DISTRICT - 585 353.
20. MS. ASHWINI B.G.
D/O LATE GUDDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS,
R/AT: BARAGURU, BARAGURU POST,
SIRA TALUK,
TUMAKUR DISTRICT - 572 113.
21. MR. KIRAN KUMAR K.
S/O KRISHNAPPA N,
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
R/AT: YARAKOTE VILLAGE,
MURUGAMALLA POST & HOBLI
CHINTAMANI TALUK
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT,
KARNATAKA - 563 146.
22. MS. RASHMI S.K.
D/O KUMARA,
R/AT: SRI RAMA NILAYA,
VISHVESHWARAIAH LAYOUT,
NC: 2025:KHC:3380
HOSA SIDDAPUR,
SHIMOGA - 577 301.
23. MR. SUNILAKUMAR KASHINATH
S/O KASHINATH,
AGED ABOUT AT 26 YEARS,
R/AT: KOLIHAL N TANDA POST,
KOLIHAL TALUK,
HUNASAGI DISTRICT
YADGIR - 585 215.
24. MS. NANDINI V
D/O VENKATESHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
PURA VILLAGE, KAKKUR POST,
MALUR TALUK,
KOLAR DIST - 563 160.
25. MR. SHIVARAJA
S/O SRI SIDDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
R/AT: NO.97/A, 1ST MAIN,
3RD CROSS CHAMUNDESHWARI,
LAYOUT VIDDYARANNAPURA POST
BANGALORE - 560 097.
26. MS. SHWETHA S.M.
D/O MARIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
R/AT: SUNNAGHATTA VILLAGE,
HONGANOOR POST
CHANNAPATNA TALUK,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 138.
27. MR. UMASHANKAR D
S/O DEVARAJ
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
R/AT: # 18/6, 15TH CROSS
BHUVANESHWARINAGAR,
MAGADI ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 023.
NC: 2025:KHC:3380
28. MR. RAMACHANDRA H.C.
S/O SRI CHIKKAMARISHETTY
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
R/AT: NO.HOSADURGA VILLAGE,
KODIHALLI HOBLI,
KANAKAPURA TALUK,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT
HOSADURGA POST : 562 119.
29. MR. ARUNKUMAR M.N
S/O SRI NATHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
R/AT: # 113, MENASIGANAHALLI,
CHANNAPATTANA TALUK,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 138.
30. MS. CHAITHRA D.G.
D/O C.GANGADHARAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
DASIHALLI, THAMMADIHALLI(POST),
CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI (TALUK),
TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 119.
31. MR. MANAPPA
S/O GURAPPA
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
R/AT: # 23, HANCHINAL S.A., POST
HARNOOR, JEWARGI TALUK,
KALABURAGI DISTRICT - 585 310.
32. MS. UMA N.
W/O ASHOK S.
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
VIJALAPURA VILLAGE,
VEERUPAKSHI POST,
MULBAGAL TALUK
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 131.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. PARASHURAM M.L., ADVOCATE)
NC: 2025:KHC:3380
AND:
1. BANGALORE METRO RAIL
CORPORATION LIMITED (BMRCL)
BMTC COMPLEX, 3RD FLOOR,
K.H.ROAD, SHANTI NAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560 027.
REPTD. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
2. THE GENERAL MANAGER,
BANGALORE METRO RAIL
CORPORATION LIMITED,
BMTC COMPLEX 3RD FLOOR,
K.H.ROAD, SHANTI NAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560 027.
3. SRI HARISH MURTHY H.N.
S/O NARASIMHA MURTHY
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
NOW R/AT: NO.142, HYADALU,
MYLANAHALLI,
NELAMANGALA TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL,
BENGALURU - 562 123.
4. SRI MAHANTESH MAHADEV DIVANMAL
S/O MAHADEV
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
R/AT: NO.3045, KUMBARGALLI,
ATHANI, KARNATAKA - 591 304.
5. SRI PRAKASH S. BHASAGI
S/O LATE SHIVALINGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
R/AT: POST GUNDAGI,
SINDAGI TALUK,
VIJAYAPURA - 586 202.
6. SRI ABDUL RAFI BAGALKOT
S/O AMINUDDIN BAGALKOT
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
R/AT: NO.843, NEAR SAVAJI GIRANI,
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3380
JAVALI PLOT, GANJENDRAGAD,
GADAJ 582 114.
7. SMT. RASHMI L
S/O GURUPRASAD W.M.,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
R/AT: NO.52, II FLOOR,
BHARGAV RESIDENCY,
2ND MAIN ROAD, 3RD CROSS, KEB LAYOUT
SANJAYNAGAR,
BENGLAURU - 560 094.
8. MS. SHWETHA S
D/O SHRIRAM
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
R/AT: NO.10, KAMMADHENU NILAYA,
4TH CROSS, C.S.R.LAYOUT,
LAKSHMIPURA CROSS,
VIDYARANYAPURA POST,
BENGALURU - 560 097.
9. SMT. VIJAYALAXMI DATA LOKARE
W/O HARISH ANIGOL
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
R/AT: NO.406/1A, BASAVA CIRCLE,
BAILHONGAL, BELAGAVI - 591 102.
10. SMT. SHASHIKALA Y.M.
W/O RAJKUMAR NAYAKODI
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
R/AT: NO.18, 5TH CROSS,
BYRAWESHWAR NAGAR,
NAGARBHAVI MAIN ROAD,
MOODALA PLAYA, BENGALURU - 560 072.
11. SRI CHETHAN KUMAR M.
S/O MANJEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
R/AT: PLOT NO.14
GOVINDAPPA LAYOUT RICEMILL
KANAKAPURA TALUK
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 117.
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3380
12. SRI MADHU R
S/O RAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
R/AT: NO.03, LIDUMALOTIPALYA VILLAGE,
BYALA POST, PURAVARA HOBLI,
MADHUGIRI, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 175.
13. SRI HARSHITA D
S/O DASARATHA R
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
R/AT:NO.21, 1ST MAIN ROAD,
PREETHINAGAL, LAGGERE,
BENGALURU - 560 058.
14. SRI CHETHAN KUMAR N.G.
S/O GURUMURTHY
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
R/AT: NANDHIHALLI,
CHIKKASARANGI POST, TUMKUR 572 118.
15. MS. MEGHA G.
D/O GANESH R
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
R/AT: NO.26, 1ST MAIN ROAD,
6TH CROSS, LAKSHMIPURAM HALASURU,
BENGALURU - 560 008.
16. SRI ABHISHEK S.P
S/O PUTTASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
R/AT: SULLEN VILLAGE & POST
CHANNAPATTANA TALUK
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 160.
17. SRI DEVARAJ K
S/O LATE KEMPEGOWDA K.R
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
R/AT: KOTTIGEGOLLAHALLI (V&P)
GULUR, TUMAKUR - 572 104.
18. SRI PRABHULINGA DODAMANI
S/O MALLIKARJUN
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3380
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
R/AT: BEHIND GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL
KALKERI TALUK, TALIKOTI
VIJAYAPURA DISTRICT - 586 118.
19. SRI CHETHAN S
S/O SHIVANNA
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
R/AT: NO.89, 3RD MAIN ROAD,
KBS WATER SUPPLY, UTTARAHALLI,
BENGLAURU - 560 061.
20. SRI RAMACHANDRA
S/O LATE KRISHNA NAYAK
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
R/AT: NO.2-113,
NELLIGADDE POST, MATPADY,
BRAHMAVARA TALUK
UDUPI DISTRICT - 576 213.
21. SRI RAVIKIRAN K
S/O KAMBAIAH R
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
R/AT: NO.3/3, SILVER WATERS,
DEVALAPURA, DEVANAGUNDI HOSAKOTE,
BENGALURU RURAL - 560 067.
22. MS. SHAKUNTHALA R
D/O RANGARAJ R
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
R/AT: NO.38/1, II CROSS,
GANGAPP ABLOCK, GANGANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 032.
23. SRI VINAYAKA L
S/O LAKSHMANA
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
R/AT: 781/A, LENIN NAGAR,
1ST MAIN ROAD, 3RD CROSS,
DAVANAGERE - 577 002.
24. SRI KUMAR
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3380
S/O TUKARAM
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
R/AT: SANNUR TANDA,
SANNUR TALUK,
KALABURAGI DISTRICT - 585 102.
25. SRI MOHANRAO P
S/O PARAMESHWARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
R/AT: #47, SOMASUNDARA VILLAGE
KURUGODU TALUK
BELLARY DISTRICT - 583 102.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VIKRAM HULIGOL, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. K. KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2;
SRI. PRITHVESH M.K., ADVOCATE FOR R3 TO R25)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950, PRAYING TO
A) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER
APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO QUASH AND
SET ASIDE THE ' 'PROVISIONAL SELECTED LIST AFTER
PSYCHOMETRIC TEST (MAIN LIST)' FOR THE PAST OF STATION
CONTROLLER / TRAIN OPERATOR' DATED NIL PUBLISHED BY
THE RESPONDENT ON THEIR WEBSITE ON 16.12.2023
(ANNEXURE-A) AND ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS PERTAINS TO PRINCIPAL BENCH
BENGALURU HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
ORDERS ON 28.11.2024 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS AT KALABURAGI BENCH
THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, THE COURT
MADE THE FOLLOWING
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3380
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV
C.A.V. ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV)
I. BRIEF FACTS:-
The petitioners in W.P.No.8208/2024 and
W.P.No.28577/2023 are the unsuccessful candidates in the
recruitment process conducted by the respondent-
Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation (hereinafter referred to
as 'BMRCL') for the post of Station Controller/Train
Operator vide Notification No.BMRCL/O & M/C-32065/R-
02/2023 dated 22.03.2023 (hereinafter referred to as
'Recruitment Notification').
2. The petitioners in common have sought for
issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari to set aside the
"Provisional Selected List after Psychometric Test (Main
List)" with respect to the post of Station Controller/Train
Operator published by respondent- BMRCL. The petitioners
have also sought for setting aside of the result of
Psychological Aptitude Test conducted by RDSO on
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3380
22.11.2023 for the post of Station Controller/Train
Operator with respect to the same post published on the
website of respondent BMRCL on 16.12.2023. The other
reliefs sought by the petitioner was for the issuance of writ
of mandamus or appropriate direction to discard the result
of the Psychometric Test conducted on 22.11.2023 or to
conduct Psychometric Test afresh in terms of the
representation dated 15.12.2023.
3. The relevant facts are that, BMRCL, by way of
Notification dated 22.03.2023 at Annexure-'C'1 invited
applications for filling up 92 posts of Station
Controller/Train Operator.
4. It was provided that there would be a Written
Examination followed by Medical Fitness Test which was
required to be cleared. It was also provided that there
would be a Psychometric Test, wherein the candidates
would be called in the ratio of 1:5 with respect to the post
of Station Controller/Train Operator.
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3380
5. The petitioners, it is stated, had applied for the
post and had attempted the Written Examination and
found their name in the Provisional Select List under
different categories.
6. The petitioners were called for appearing in the
Psychometric Test, meanwhile, the petitioners were also
called for document verification and in the list published
thereafter, the names of petitioners were not to be found.
7. Finally, the "Provisional Selected List after
Psychometric Test (Main List)" and result of Psychological
Aptitude Test dated 22.11.2023 was published and the
petitioners having not been selected and hence the
present Writ Petitions have been filed.
8. In W.P.No.28577/2023, this Court vide its
interim order dated 18.12.2023 directed the respondent
BMRCL to conduct a second Psychometric Test. Against
such interim order Writ Appeal No.63/2024 was filed by
the successful candidates who were not arrayed parties in
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3380
W.P.No.28577/2023. Accordingly, the Division Bench vide
its order dated 31.01.2024 directed the respondent BMRCL
to keep the results of the second Psychometric Test in a
sealed cover for perusal of learned Single Judge.
9. Insofar as Writ Appeal No.63/2024 is
concerned, the order passed therein is against the interim
order passed in W.P.28577/2023. However, since the Writ
Petitions are being disposed of on merits, the proceedings
in the Writ Appeal need not come in the way of disposal of
the present proceedings.
II. CONTENTIONS OF PARTIES:-
10. The contentions raised by petitioners are as
follows:-
(i) That the Recruitment Notification was bad in
law, as nature, form, evaluation methodology and
qualifying criteria with regard to Psychometric Test was
not disclosed.
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3380
(ii) That the cut-off marks for each component of
Psychometric Test were published after the notice dated
17.11.2023 calling upon the candidates to appear for
Psychometric Test to be held on 22.11.2023.
(iii) It was contended that the petitioners, who were
otherwise eligible were excluded from the zone of
consideration based on a post facto change in the selection
criteria. It was submitted that there was no passing score
prescribed for the Psychometric Test in the Recruitment
Notification.
(iv) It was contended that the subsequent
stipulation introducing minimum marks for clearing the
Psychometric Test had resulted in changing the 'Rules of
the Game' mid-way by introducing a benchmark which did
not exist at the time of commencement of the selection
process. Reliance was placed on the judgment of Apex
Court in K. Manjushree v. State of A.P. and Another2
[K. Manjushree] as well as Tej Prakash Pathak and
(2008) 3 SCC 512
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3380
Others v. Rajasthan High Court and Others3 [Tej
Prakash Pathak].
(v) The petitioners had further contended that the
criteria for evaluation not only ought to be fixed before
hand, but also ought to be communicated.
(vi) It was specifically contended that the
petitioners were taken by surprise regarding prescribing of
minimum cut-off for Psychometric Test at a belated stage
of the process.
(vii) It was also submitted that the petitioners were
not estopped from challenging the selection process where
the selection criteria was announced after the process of
selection had commenced.
11. The contentions raised by respondent-BMRCL
are as follows:-
Civil Appeal No.2634/2013 dated 07.11.2024
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3380
(i) The short listing in the ratio of 1:5 was
prepared on the basis of marks in the Written Examination
with reference to their entitlement in different categories.
(ii) That it was specifically provided in the
Recruitment Notification regarding the necessity of
clearing the Psychometric Test and the petitioners having
failed in the said Psychometric Test, their names were
rightly not found in the Final Selection List.
(iii) That the Recruitment Notification itself had
stipulated regarding necessity to clear the Psychometric
Test.
(iv) That the Psychometric Test was necessary in
order to ensure selection of a suitable candidate keeping in
mind the duties and nature of the particular post.
(v) That the details regarding holding of
Psychometric Test was repeatedly conveyed on different
dates through E-mail and SMS (message) at subsequent
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3380
stages apart from stipulation in the Recruitment
Notification.
(vi) That the calculation of 'T-Score' as a method of
evaluation was consistently followed and there was no
violation of the ratio laid down in K. Manjushree (supra)
as affirmed in Tej Prakash Pathak (supra) which only
stipulated that stipulation of eligibility criteria at the
commencement of recruitment process could not be
changed mid-way.
(vii) That the prescription of 'T-Score' which had
nexus with the 'Mean Score' of all the candidates, was
inherently a variable benchmark and accordingly, an
advance cut-off mark could not be prescribed.
(viii) That the petitioners having participated in the
selection process and having subjected themselves to the
Psychometric Test without protest, the petitioners were
estopped from challenging the validity of such
Psychometric Test.
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3380
III. ANALYSIS:-
12. It must be noticed that the Recruitment
Notification provided for selection on the basis of Written
Test in terms of Clause 8.01 which also provides for a
Medical Fitness Examination. Clause 8.01 reads as
follows:-
""£ÉêÀÄPÁw ¥ÀæQæAiÉÄ :
8.01. °TvÀ ¥ÀjÃPÉëAiÀÄ°è UÀ½¹zÀ CAPÀUÀ¼À DzsÁgÀzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É DAiÉÄÌAiÀÄ£ÀÄß
PÀlÄÖ¤mÁÖV ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁUÀĪÀÅzÀÄ. DAiÉÄÌ ªÀiÁrzÀ C¨sÀåyðUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÀÄÆ®
zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À ¥Àj²Ã®£ÉUÁV ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÀ£ÀßqÀ ¥ÀjÃPÉëUÉ PÀgÉAiÀįÁUÀĪÀÅzÀÄ.
zÁR¯Áw ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÀ£ÀßqÀ ¥ÀjÃPÉëAiÀÄ°è GwÛÃtðgÁzÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß £ÀAvÀgÀ
ªÉÊzÀåQÃAiÀÄ ¦ümï£É¸ï ¥ÀjÃPÉëªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁUÀĪÀÅzÀÄ."
13. Further, Clause-9 of the Recruitment
Notification provides for Medical Fitness Examination, as
well as Psychometric test which reads as follows:-
"9. ªÉÊzÀåQÃAiÀÄ ¦ümÉß¸ï ¥ÀjÃPÉë :-
°TvÀ ¥ÀjÃPÉëAiÀÄ CºÀðvÉAiÀÄ DzsÁgÀzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É £ÉêÀÄPÁwUÁV DAiÉÄÌ
ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁzÀ C¨sÀåyðUÀ¼ÀÄ ºÀÄzÉÝUÉ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀ PÀvÀðªÀåUÀ¼À£ÀÄß
¤ªÀð»¸À®Ä ªÉÊzÀåQÃAiÀĪÁV ¸ÀªÀÄxÀðgÁVzÁÝgÉ JAzÀÄ
RavÀ¥Àr¹PÉƼÀî®Ä BMRCL £ÀqɸÀĪÀ CUÀvÀå«gÀĪÀ ªÉÊzÀåQÃAiÀÄ
¦ümï£É¸ï ¥ÀjÃPÉë ¥Á¸ï ªÀiÁqÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ. (ªÉÊzÀåQÃAiÀÄ ¦ümÉß¸ï ¥ÀjÃPÉëAiÀÄÄ
gÉʯÉé ªÉÊzÀåQÃAiÀÄ ªÀiÁ£ÀzÀAqÀUÀ¼À ¥ÀæPÁgÀ EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ). «µÀÄAiÀįï CPÀÄån
¸ÁÖöåAqÀqïð ªÉÊzÀåQÃAiÀÄ ¦ümï£É¸ï ¥ÀæªÀÄÄR ªÀiÁ£ÀzÀAqÀUÀ¼À°è MAzÁVzÉ.
F ºÀÄzÉÝUÀ½UÉ CºÀðvÉ ¥ÀjÃPÉëUÀ¼À°è CºÀðvÉ ¥ÀqÉzÀ C¨sÀåyðUÀ¼ÀÄ, ¤UÀ¢vÀ
ªÉÊzÀåQÃAiÀÄ ¥ÀjÃPÉëAiÀÄ°è C£ÀÄwÛÃtðgÁzÀgÉ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ¸ÀAzÀ¨sÀðzÀ°è
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3380
£ÉêÀÄPÁwUÉ ¥ÀjUÀt¸À¯ÁUÀĪÀÅ¢®è JA§ÄzÀ£ÀÄß UÀªÀĤ¸À§ºÀÄzÀÄ.
¤UÀªÀĪÀÅ £ÀqɹzÀ ªÉÊzÀåQÃAiÀÄ ¥sÀ°vÁA±ÀªÀÅ CAwªÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ
C¨sÀåyðAiÀÄÄ EzÀPÉÌ §zÀÝgÁVgÀ¨ÉÃPÁUÀÄvÀÛzÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ F «µÀAiÀÄzÀ°è
AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ªÀÄ£À«AiÀÄ£ÀÄß / JgÀqÀ£Éà C©ü¥ÁæAiÀĪÀ£ÀÄß M¼ÀUÉÆAqÀAvÉ,
¥ÀjUÀt¸À¯ÁUÀĪÀÅ¢®è.
¸ÉÖõÀ£ï PÀAmÉÆæîgï/mÉæöÊ£ï D¥ÀgÉÃlgïUÀ½UÉ 1:5 C£ÀÄ¥ÁvÀzÀ°è
¸ÉÊPÉÆêÉÄnæPï (Psychometric) ¥ÀjÃPÉë £ÀqɸÀ¯ÁUÀĪÀÅzÀÄ".
14. A perusal of Recruitment Notification would
indicate the following:-
(a) Those who have been selected on the basis of
Written Examination are to be evaluated as to whether
they are medically fit to perform the duties attached to the
post.
(b) They are required to pass the Medical Test
which would be evaluated in terms of the standards
followed in Railway Medical Evaluation.
(c) Those who do not clear the Medical Test are
excluded from the process.
- 24 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3380
(d) For the post of Station Controller/Train
Operator, there would be a Psychometric Test and
candidates would be called in the ratio of 1:5.
15. It thus emerges that in terms of Clause-9 of the
Recruitment Notification, there would be an evaluation of
suitability and the Medical Test is as per the standards
adopted in the Indian Railways. It is further provided that
as regards the Posts in question, there would be a
Psychometric Test.
16. At the first stage, there was a Written Test.
The Provisional Lists were prepared as at Annexure-'E1'4
after the Written Test. The Provisional Lists were prepared
Category-wise. Apart from the main list, waiting list was
also prepared Category-wise. In terms of the stipulation
in the Recruitment Notification which provided that
candidates would be called for Psychometric Test in the
ratio of 1:5, the said Test was taken up only by those
candidates shortlisted in the ratio of 1:5. This is evident
- 25 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3380
from the results of Psychological Aptitude Test at
Annexure-'B'5, wherein 433 candidates were evaluated for
92 vacant Posts. Accordingly, the shortlisting of those
candidates who could attempt the Psychometric Test is on
the basis of performance in the Written Examination. This
is the same stand taken by the respondent BMRCL as
noticed in their written submissions at paras-2.4 and 2.5.
17. The Recruitment Notification when referred to in
the website of respondent-BMRCL, has references to
"IMPORTANT INSTRUCTIONS TO THE CANDIDATES
APPEARING FOR THE PSYCHOMETRIC TEST ON
22/11/2023 and 23/11/2023". Under such caption the
details of following two links are made:
Link-1
(https://rdso.indianrailways.gov.in/works/uploads/File/Metro%20Guidelines
%20CBT( 2).pdf)
Link-2
(https://g06.tcsion.com/OnlineAssessment/index.html?32436@@M211)
18. A perusal of Link-1 above as on date would
reveal that it directs back to the Homepage of the RDSO
- 26 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3380
website which takes us back to the FAQ. The FAQs are
rather illustrative and cannot have the effect of overriding
the Recruitment Notification by BMRCL. In the event of
any ambiguity, needless to state the Recruitment
Notification shall prevail.
19. The relevant extract of the FAQ are as follows:
"5. Question: How are T-score and composite
score of a candidate calculated in CBT mode of
Aptitude Test?
Answer: Norms and standards as laid down from
time to time shall be applied uniformly to all
candidates for adjudging their suitability. The basic
parameters required to calculate T-score are Mean
and Standard Deviation as derived from data of all
candidates appeared in the test. Normally for most
of the candidates, Tscore falls between T-score 80
to T-score 20, however formula does not rule out
possibility of T-score beyond this range also,
though number of such candidates may be very
few.
The formula to calculate T-score is:
x-Mean
T = 50 + 10 SD ,(where x is candidate's score in the test and SD is
Standard Deviation)
- 27 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3380
The T-score for particular subject for a test can be
calculated as follows:-
Subject score on Test 1 say = 20
Mean of Test 1 say =14
Standard Deviation of Test 1 say =3
20-40
T = 50 + 10 3 = 50 +10(2)=70
Calculation of composite score is as follows:
As weightage to Aptitude Test is 30, the composite
score of a particular subject can be calculated as
follows:
Composite T-score of a candidate having 5 tests in
a battery is=300
The max T-score a candidate can obtain having 5
tests in a battery is (80x5) =400
The composite score out of 30 is:
*Out of 400 score candidate scored =300
*Out of 30 score will be = 300*30 = 22.5"
20. A perusal of the FAQ would clarify that raw
score is different from T-score and that raw score of each
test is converted into T-score.
21. It is to be noted that the FAQs are also of the
RDSO relating to Railway Exams which has been adopted
- 28 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3380
by the respondent BMRCL and the entirety of FAQs may
not throw light on every aspect of the recruitment process.
FAQ at question No.12 of apportioning marks in 70:30
(70% in RRB Examination and 30% in aptitude) though
would be a valid apportionment in RRB Examination,
cannot be extended in the present case, as the
Recruitment Notification makes it mandatory to clear the
Psychometric Test and on failure to clear the Psychometric
Test, the candidate is ejected out of the recruitment
process. Accordingly, FAQ is liable to be ignored as is
contrary to the Recruitment Notification on such aspect.
22. Insofar as the respondent BMRCL, the formula
for calculation of T-score is prescribed in the statement of
objections filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 dated
28.10.2024, as follows:
"T = 50 + 10 (a-x) , (where x is candidate's score in the test and SD is
δ
Standard Deviation)
Where, T-Score of the candidate in a given test = T
Mean score of all candidates that appear for give test = X
Standard deviation for the given test = δ
Raw/absolute score of a candidate in the given test = a"
- 29 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3380
23. Accordingly, as regards the mode and manner
of evaluation adopted by the respondent BMRCL,
reference can be made to Link-1 supra and the formula
prescribed in the statement of objections, details of which
has be elucidated in the preceding paragraphs. The 'T-
score' is calculated in terms of the formula prescribed. The
said formula consists of variables viz., 'T' is 'T-score' of
candidate in a given Test; 'X' is Mean Score of all
candidates who appear for given Test; 'a' is raw/absolute
score of a candidate in the given test; 'δ' is Standard
Deviation for the given Test. In light of the same, the
calculation of the 'T-score' is relative to the normal
performance of all other candidates and hence, cannot be
prescribed in advance.
24. Insofar as the contention that the 'T-score' was
not announced at a prior stage of the recruitment, the
explanation of the respondent BMRCL requires acceptance.
Accordingly, as 'T-score' is a relative performance of
candidates, the occasion to notify the same in advance
- 30 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3380
could never arise. The minimum score (raw) as well as
maximum score (raw) has been notified at Annexure-'M' in
W.P.No.28577/2023 and at a subsequent stage of the
recruitment process. Such prescription cannot be objected
to as introducing an element of surprise, since the very
process of prescription of marks is only after participation
of candidates and their evaluation is made in the
psychometric test.
25. Insofar as the petitioners are concerned, they
are required to score equal to or greater than the
minimum score prescribed for Test-T1, Test-T2, Test-T3,
Test-T4 and Test-TG. The minimum score prescribed for
such of the Tests is as follows:
Test T1 T2 T3 T4 TG
Minimum score 15 13 19 14 12
(Raw)
26. Insofar as Test-TQ and Test-T7, the candidates
must have scored below the specified maximum marks
which is contained in the table as below:-
- 31 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3380
Test TQ T7
Maximum score (Raw) 8 823
27. Once the performance of candidates are
evaluated in consonance with the above criteria, Final
Selection List would reflect those who have been 'eligible'
or 'ineligible'. It is clear from the Recruitment Notification
that those who have failed in the Psychometric Test would
be outside the zone of consideration in light of the
stipulation at Point No.9 of the Recruitment Notification
extracted supra.
28. It is the contention of petitioners that the rules
of the game have been changed in the midst of
recruitment process by placing reliance on the judgment of
Apex Court in Tej Prakash Pathak (supra). The
petitioners' contention is on the premise that the passing
marks for the Psychometric Test was not specified in
advance and could not have been introduced mid-way.
- 32 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3380
29. As observed above, the minimum Raw Score
was prescribed after the evaluation process in the
Psychometric Test. It is as against such minimum Raw
Score prescribed for Test - T1, T2, T3, T4 and TG and less
than maximum Raw Score for Test - TQ and T7, that
evaluation has been made. Such prescription by the very
method of evaluation could have been made only after the
Tests and such prescription cannot amount to change in
the Rules of the game, is an accepted exception that
where the Recruitment Notification itself provides for a
methodology whereby, minimum marks for passing is
dependent upon comparative performance of other
candidates, the same cannot be faulted.
30. Though, it is contended by the petitioners that
the formula prescribed for conversion of raw score to
T-score has nothing to do with prescription of a cut-off
mark, it must be noticed that minimum Raw Score has
been prescribed as per the Table above and the Court
cannot now enter into manner in which the minimum
- 33 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3380
T-Raw Scores have been fixed. It is a settled position that
the Court does not sit in appeal over the wisdom of
experts.
31. Insofar as the details regarding Psychometric
Test, it is to be noticed that the respondent BMRCL has
specifically asserted that the communication of details
regarding the said Psychometric Test was sent by way of
SMS and E-mail. The reference to Instructions given to
the candidates at Annexure-'G'6 is acknowledged by the
petitioners, which the petitioners refer to as 'Generic
Instructions'.
32. A perusal of the said Instructions would indicate
that the Psychometric Test included Online Test and
Reaction Test. It was provided that a generic view of
Psychometric Test could be obtained from the Indian
Railway RDSO Website. The link was also provided, which
is extracted supra as Link-17.
Link-1-(https://rdso.indianrailways.gov.in/works/uploads/File/Metro%20Guidelines%20CBT( 2).pdf)
- 34 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3380
33. The Link-1 is also found in the Hall Ticket that
was sent to the candidates calling upon them to appear for
the Psychometric Test. Copy of such Hall Ticket is enclosed
at Annexure-'H'8 and the Sample Instructions sent to
candidates through E-mail on 17.11.2023 is found at
Annexure-'R9'9. The reference made in the Instructions
sent to the candidates through E-mail as well as the Hall
ticket are as hereunder:
The candidates should go through the generic view of
the Psychometric test on the Indian Railway, RDSO
website:-
(https://rdso.indianrailways.gov.in/works/uploads/File/Metro%
20Guidelines%20CBT( 2).pdf)
The candidates should go through the Mock Link available
on the BMRCL website and familiarize themselves with
the Online Psychometric test -
(https://g06.tcsion.com/OnlineAssessment/index.html?32436
@@M211)
34. It was specifically provided that Mock Link was
available on BMRCL Website to enable familiarizing with
the Online Psychometric Test and the link was also
provided which is extracted supra. In light of such
W.P.No.28577.2023
Additional Statement of Objections of respondent Nos.1 & 2 in W.P.No.28577/2023
- 35 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3380
information provided, it cannot be stated that the Links
provided did not constitute a broad picture of the nature of
the Psychometric Test.
35. Firstly, all petitioners were similarly placed by
virtue of communication regarding nature of Test.
Secondly, the nature of Psychometric Test was available
for being ascertained in the Public Domain as well.
36. In light of the above, it cannot be stated that
there was no clarity regarding the nature of Psychometric
Test, though better clarity may have been desirable.
Desirability of clarity does not always lead to the
conclusion that system that was adopted was arbitrary or
illegal.
37. The Affidavit dated 12.11.2024 filed by the
petitioner in W.P.No.28577/2023 would indicate the
petitioners' stand that access to Link-1, i.e.
(https://rdso.indianrailways.gov.in/works/uploads/File/Met
ro%20Guidelines%20CBT( 2).pdf) would redirect them to
- 36 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3380
the 'pdf'- "Guidelines for Candidates appearing for
Psychological Aptitude Test organized by Metro Rail in CBT
mode" comprising only of 13 pages. A perusal of the said
material produced at Annexure-'B' of the Affidavit would
indicate the details of the Tests viz., (i) Test for measuring
intelligence; (ii) Test for measuring memory; (iii)
Concentration Test; (iv) Personality Test; (v) Field
Independence Test; (vi) Reaction Time Test. Under each
Test as detailed above, there are Instructions regarding
the nature of Tests.
38. If the material of "Guidelines for Candidates
appearing for Psychological Aptitude Test organized by
Metro Rail in CBT mode" at Annexure-'B' to the Affidavit
dated 12.11.2024 is looked into as well as the General
Instructions under the FAQ together, the above material
would give a broad picture regarding the nature of the
Psychometric Test and such information throws light on
the mode and manner of the selection as well. This would
- 37 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3380
suffice the requirement regarding necessary information to
attempt the Psychometric Test.
39. Though a contention is raised regarding the
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) being inaccurate,
nevertheless, a broad outline of Psychometric Test having
been indicated by virtue of the communication to the
petitioners, it cannot be stated that the petitioners were
taken by surprise.
40. Another contention advanced is that except for
material at Annexure-'B' to the Affidavit dated 12.11.2024,
the other material in the form of FAQ was not in the
knowledge of petitioners. However, in light of the
observations made supra that the Link-1 (supra)
communicated to the petitioners would in fact re-direct to
the FAQ section, the said contention does not hold water.
41. This Court finds that the judgment relied upon
in Tej Prakash Pathak (supra) does not help the case
- 38 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3380
of the petitioners herein in light of the discussion made
above.
Accordingly, both the Writ Petitions are rejected.
Sd/-
(S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV)
JUDGE
VGR
