Avinash Chandra Tiwari vs Union Of India
2022 Latest Caselaw 8841 MP

                           1
        IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                     AT JABALPUR
                            BEFORE
             HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH,
                        CHIEF JUSTICE
                               &
             HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
                    ON THE 4th OF JULY, 2022

                 WRIT APPEAL No. 617 of 2022

     Between:-
1.   AVINASH CHANDRA TIWARI S/O SHRI
     KAMLAKANT TIWARI, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
     OCCUPATION: HEAD CONSTABLE RAILWAY
     PROTECTION FORCE JABALPUR 3434/97 ANMOL
     NAGAR    TRIMURTI   NAGAR     JABALPUR
     (MADHYA PRADESH)

2.   DHEERAJ KUMAR PANDEY S/O SHRI SHRI
     KUMAR PANDEY, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
     OCCUPATION:    CONSTABLE   RAILWAY
     PROTECTION FORCE JABALPUR R/O 302/14
     NEHRU    RAILWAY   COLONY  HOWBAG
     JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                   .....APPELLANTS
     (BY SHRI A.S. RAIZADA - ADVOCATE)

     AND

1.   UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY
     RAILWAY BOARD MINISTRY RAILWAY BOARD
     MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS NEW DELHI (DELHI)

2.   DIRECTOR GENERAL RAILWAY PROTECTION
     FORCE RAIL BHAWAN NEW DELHI (DELHI)

3.   DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL CUM NODAL
     CHIEF SECRETARY COMMISSIONER WESTERN
     R A I L W A Y CHURCH  GATE   MUMBAI
     (MAHARASHTRA) (MAHARASHTRA)

4.   DIVISIONAL SECURITY COMMISSIONER AND
     CHAIRMAN    OF    DPC RAJKOT WESTERN
     RAILWAY (GUJARAT) (GUJARAT)

5.   INSPECTOR GENERAL CUM PRINCIPLE CHIEF
                              2
         SECURITY COMMISSIONER (PCSC) RAILWAY
         PROTECTION FORCE PREM BUILDING INDIRA
         MARKET JABALPUR M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                .....RESPONDENTS
         (BY SHRI C.M. TIWARI - ADVOCATE )

      This appeal coming on for admission this day, Hon'ble Shri Justice
Ravi Malimath, Chief Justice passed the following:
                                     ORDER

Aggrieved by order dated 27.04.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in dismissing W.P. No.8481 of 2022, the writ petitioners are in appeal.

The case of the petitioners is that they being Constables were eligible to appear for the Departmental Competitive Examination for the post of Assistant

Sub-Inspector in terms of Rule 72 of the RPF Rules, 1987. They appeared for the same. Rule 71 provides for maximum marks of 80 and qualifying marks of 48, however, Sub-rule (2) of Rule 71 provides that candidates qualifying in the written examination shall be considered for assessment of service record for which marks may be awarded as specified in the Directives and the maximum marks will be 20. That a panel shall be drawn from amongst the candidates securing 60% or more marks in the order of their respective seniority in the rank. The petitioners did not qualify for the same. It is the plea of the petitioners that so far as Question No. 75 is concerned, they ticked Option-2 as a correct answer, whereas the committee was of the view that Option-1 is the correct answer. Thereafter, the promotions were made. The petitioners were not granted the same. Hence, the instant petition was filed.

The learned Single Judge came to the view that the view of the expert cannot be substituted by the view of the Court, therefore, rejected the petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the marks awarded to the petitioners are erroneous. If the questions and answers are to be seen, what

the experts have held, is wrong.

However, we have considered the submission of the petitioners. The primary prayer of the petitioners is for grant of promotion. They have challenged the promotion list. The last prayer is with regard to the Question No.75. Even though the contentions have been advanced with regard to the correctness of the answers submitted by him of various questions, we do not think that it is the subject matter of the petition. The only ground urged by the petitioners is with regard to the Question No.75. The experts have held contrary to the answers ticked by the petitioners. As rightly held by the learned Single Judge by relying on various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, a writ court cannot sit as an appellate authority over the view taken by the expert body. Hence, we do not find any error in the finding of the learned Single Judge. The question of challenging the promotional order is as a consequence to the petitioners qualifying for the same. They having failed to qualify the same, therefore, would not be entitled to be promoted.

For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any illegality in the order of the learned Single Judge that calls for any interference.

The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

      (RAVI MALIMATH)                                          (VISHAL MISHRA)
        CHIEF JUSTICE                                               JUDGE
MSP




  Digitally signed by
  MANVENDRA SINGH PARIHAR
  Date: 2022.07.05 10:53:12
  +05'30'