S V SANTOSH KUMAR vs M/o Railways

1
OA.No.650/2018

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
HYDERABAD BENCH
CIRCUIT SITTING AT VIJAYAWADA
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.020/00650/2018
ORDER RESERVED ON 23.09.2026
DATE OF ORDER: 13.10.2026

HON’BLE MR. MANISH GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON’BLE MR.VARUN SINDHU KUL KAUMUDI, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER

S.V.Santosh Kumar, S/o Late S.V.L. Narasimham
Aged about 32 years, R/o D.No.18/186
Prahaladapuram, Simhachalam, Visakhapatnam
Working as Senior Porter, Simhachalam.
North Electronic in Motion Weighing Bridge
East Coast Railway, Waltair Division. …..Applicant

(By Advocate: Sri P.Ramchander Rao)

Vs.

1. Union of India
East Coast Railway
Bhuvaneswar Odisha
Rep. by its General Manager.

2. The Divisional Railway Manager
East Coast Railway
Visakhapatnam.

3. The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer
East Coast Railway
Visakhapatnam. ….Respondents

(By Advocate: Smt. B.Gayatri Varma, Sr.CGSC)
*






Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA
DN: C=IN, CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA, L=Hyderabad, O=
Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=Central Administrative Tribunal
Hyderabad Bench, ST=Telangana, [email protected],
postalCode=500004, serialNumber=
35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f41813a4
eb590082, street=No. 05-10-193, 1st Floor, HACA Bhavan,
Saifabad, Hyderabad, telephoneNumber=
ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfaa0a51
0742c22
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2026.10.26 16:36:09+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0
PANDIRLAPA
LLI SANDHYA

2
OA.No.650/2018

O R D E R
PER:HON’BLEMR. VARUN SINDHU KUL KAUMUDI, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER


1. The present Original Application has been filed by the applicant under Section
19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following relief:
“….to declare the action of the respondents in constituting the
selection board contrary to the guidelines framed by the Railway
Board, Ministry of Railways, Government of India for recruitment
of in-service candidates to the post of TC/ECCA against 16-2/3%
quota in Commercial Department, selection by promotion and
further declare that any selection of the candidates for the post of
TC/ECCA is void ab initio and consequently direct the
respondents to constitute the selection committee as per the
guidelines framed by the railway board by issuing the fresh
notification and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble
Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”


2. The facts of the case, in brief, as submitted by the applicant, are as follows:
i. The applicant was appointed, on 13.01.2007, as a Commercial Porter at
the Bhansi Railway Station, Waltair Division, East Coast Railways,
and has been discharging his duties without any blemish. While so, the
office of the Divisional Railway Manager, Personnel Department,
Waltair Division, issued a notification to conduct selection (written
tests), for promotion to the post of TC/ECCA, against 16-2/3 % quota
in the Commercial Department. The qualification prescribed for the
th
abovementioned post is 10 Class passed. Since, the applicant was
working as a commercial porter and was eligible to be promoted to the
post of TC/ECCA, he made an application through the proper channel.
ii. After thorough verification of the qualification of the applicant, the
applicant’s name was displayed in the eligible candidates’ list and,
thereafter, a written test was conducted on 20.01.2018 and 27.01.2018.
Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA
DN: C=IN, CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA, L=Hyderabad, O=
Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=Central Administrative Tribunal
Hyderabad Bench, ST=Telangana, [email protected],
postalCode=500004, serialNumber=
35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f41813a4
eb590082, street=No. 05-10-193, 1st Floor, HACA Bhavan,
Saifabad, Hyderabad, telephoneNumber=
ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfaa0a51
0742c22
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2026.10.26 16:36:09+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0
PANDIRLAPA
LLI SANDHYA

3
OA.No.650/2018

The applicant appeared for the written test and qualified among 43
members.
iii. It is alleged that the Selection Committee was not constituted as per the
guidelines and when the applicant suspected foul play on the part of
the Selection Committee, he sought information under the Right to
Information Act, 2005. The competent authority furnished the
information to the applicant on 07.06.2018, wherein it was informed
that the Selection Committee for the purpose of selection to the posts
of TC/ECCA is as follows:
Selection Committee

DCM (Co-ord)
Sr. DOM (M),
Sr. DMM,
DPO

iv. As per Rule 218 of the IREM, the Railway Board has framed the
following guidelines for constituting the Selection Board:
(a) Selection Boards shall consist of not less than three
officers, one of whom should be a Personnel Officer and
one of the Members should be from a Department other
than that for which selection is held. The presence of a
Personnel Officer in the Selection Boards along with two
officers from the Department for which selection is held
would meet the requirement of an officer being from a
department other than that for which selection is held.

(b) When a Selection Board consist of only three Officers,
none of the members be directly subordinate to any
other.

(c) For selection posts in scale of pay Rs.5500-9000(RSRP)
and above, the Selections Boards will consist of officers
of Junior Administrative Grade. For all other selection
posts the Selection Board will consist of officers not
lower in rank than senior scale. In either case, except in
the case of selection for Personnel Department, the
Selection Board may include a Personnel Officer in the
Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA
DN: C=IN, CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA, L=Hyderabad, O=
Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=Central Administrative Tribunal
Hyderabad Bench, ST=Telangana, [email protected],
postalCode=500004, serialNumber=
35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f41813a4
eb590082, street=No. 05-10-193, 1st Floor, HACA Bhavan,
Saifabad, Hyderabad, telephoneNumber=
ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfaa0a51
0742c22
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2026.10.26 16:36:09+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0
PANDIRLAPA
LLI SANDHYA

4
OA.No.650/2018

next lower rank who shall nevertheless be an equal
member of the Selection Board.

Note: In Divisions where JA Grade Officers are not
available in the concerned Department, JA Grade
Officers of any other Department may be nominated as
the members of the Selection Board, the senior scale
officer in Independent charge of the concerned
Department, who will not be subordinate to any other
members of the Selection Board, being nominated as the
fourth Member who will also sign the selection
proceedings. In the case of selection for Personnel
Department if there is no JA Grade officer in the
Personnel Department of a Division and the post is
Divisionally controlled, in addition to the senior scale
personnel officer of the Division, a JA Grade officer of
the adjoining Division or of the Headquarters may be
included in the Selection Board."

v. The Applicant submits that the Selection Committee was constituted
contrary to the above guidelines. On perusal of the information
furnished under the Right to Information Act, it was found that the
th
Three Member Committee had nominated the DCM (Co-ord) as the 4
Member of the Selection Board, who is subordinate to the other
members of the Board, viz., the Sr.DOM (M), and the Sr. DMM.
Therefore, any selection to the post of TC/ECCA, pursuant to the
formation of such a Selection Board, is void ab initio and liable to be
set aside. Hence, the present OA.
3. Grounds urged by the applicant are as follows:
i. The present OA is being filed questioning the action of the respondents
in constituting the Selection Board, contrary to the guidelines framed
by the Railway Board.
Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA
DN: C=IN, CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA, L=Hyderabad, O=
Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=Central Administrative Tribunal
Hyderabad Bench, ST=Telangana, [email protected],
postalCode=500004, serialNumber=
35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f41813a4
eb590082, street=No. 05-10-193, 1st Floor, HACA Bhavan,
Saifabad, Hyderabad, telephoneNumber=
ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfaa0a51
0742c22
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2026.10.26 16:36:09+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0
PANDIRLAPA
LLI SANDHYA

5
OA.No.650/2018

ii. Because of the faulty constitution of the Selection Board, the entire
selection deserves to be set aside and fresh Selection Board may be
constituted, as per the guidelines laid down by the Railway Board.

4. The Applicant has also filed MA.No.457/2018 wherein he states as follows:
i. This Tribunal, while admitting the O.A.No.650/2018, passed orders,
dt.09.07.2018, to the effect that any appointments will be subject to the
result of the original application. Feeling aggrieved by the same,
W.P.No.23830 of 2018 was filed before the Hon'ble High Court at
Hyderabad and the Hon'ble High Court disposed of the said writ petition
on 12.07.2018, with the following direction:
"liberty is granted to the petitioner to place some relevant
documents before the Tribunal and thereafter, the
respondent shall file comprehensive counter affidavit to the
O.A. as well as the material that may be placed on behalf of
the petitioner.”

ii. Pursuant to the said direction of the Hon'ble High Court, the applicant
filed documents to show that he is more meritorious than M.Sai Prasad
and K. Madhu, who had been selected to the post of TC.
iii. It is submitted that the applicant had secured 65.5 marks in the written
test whereas M. Sai Prasad and K. Madhu had secured 66 & 65.5 marks,
respectively. He obtained the answer sheet of the written test under the
RTI Act, 2005, wherein the selection committee had not assigned marks
to Part-B, Question No.9 of III, though the applicant has given the right
answer. Thereby, he is deprived of two marks. Had the selection
committee awarded 2 marks to the above question, he would have
Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA
DN: C=IN, CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA, L=Hyderabad, O=
Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=Central Administrative Tribunal
Hyderabad Bench, ST=Telangana, [email protected],
postalCode=500004, serialNumber=
35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f41813a4
eb590082, street=No. 05-10-193, 1st Floor, HACA Bhavan,
Saifabad, Hyderabad, telephoneNumber=
ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfaa0a51
0742c22
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2026.10.26 16:36:09+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0
PANDIRLAPA
LLI SANDHYA

6
OA.No.650/2018

secured 67.5 marks, thereby placing him above these two candidates in
the overall ranking.

5. On notice, Respondents have filed their reply statement wherein they have
averred as follows:
i. It is submitted that a notification, vide No. WPY/612/TC/Sele/16 2/3%
Quota (27), dt. 28.03.2016, was issued for selection for promotion to
the post of Ticket Collectors in PB-1, scale 5200-20200 with Grade
Pay of Rs.1900, against 162/3% quota in the Commercial Department,
for filling up 12 vacancies, with the breakup of 08/UR+02/SC+02/ST,
in the Ticket Collectors category in the Commercial Department.
ii. The names of eligible/ineligible staff were circulated, vide Office Ir.
No. WPY/612/TC/Sele/16 2/3% Quota (27), dt. 13.04.2017.
iii. Aggrieved with the above eligible/in-eligible list, some of the
candidates gave a joint representation, dt.22.11.2017, to the DRM
stating that the notification included the Group-D staff of the Operating
Department in the zone of consideration, which is against the
principles laid down by the Railway Board and requested to issue a
fresh notification, confining it only to the staff of the Commercial
Department.
iv. The representation of the applicant was referred to the PCPO/BBS for
clarification which approved the action taken by the Division in
allowing the eligible Group - D staff from the Operating Department,
apart from the eligible staff from the Commercial Department.
Thereafter, as per paras 3.4.4 and 3.4.5 of the Railway Rules and
Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA
DN: C=IN, CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA, L=Hyderabad, O=
Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=Central Administrative Tribunal
Hyderabad Bench, ST=Telangana, [email protected],
postalCode=500004, serialNumber=
35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f41813a4
eb590082, street=No. 05-10-193, 1st Floor, HACA Bhavan,
Saifabad, Hyderabad, telephoneNumber=
ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfaa0a51
0742c22
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2026.10.26 16:36:09+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0
PANDIRLAPA
LLI SANDHYA

7
OA.No.650/2018

Guidelines, communicated under CPO GRC SE Rly Estt Srl.
No.266/1999, dt.28.10.1999, the following members were nominated
by the Competent Authority to the Selection Committee, for
conducting the above selection:-
Sr.Divl. Operations Manager : Jr. Administrative Grade
(Movement) (Paper Evaluator)
Sr.Divl. Material Manager : Jr. Administrative Grade
(Reserved Category)

Divl. Personnel Officer : Sr. Scale (Personnel Department)
Divl. Commercial Manager : Sr. Scale with independent charge;
(Co-ordination) Co-opted Member (Paper setter)

v. Respondents have stated that, as a matter of fact, for the impugned
selection, a Committee consisting of Sr. Scale Officers could have
been constituted. However, due to non-availability of two Sr. Scale
officers of the Transport/Concerned department at the material point of
time, a Committee with Jr. Administrative Officers was constituted by
the competent authority, as per para 3.5 of the Establishment Serial No.
266/1999. The nominated Senior Scale Officer with independent
charge, i.e., the Divisional Commercial Manager(Coordination), is in
no way subordinate or reporting to the other nominated Jr.
Administrative Grade (JAG) Officers, as the said Jr. Administrative
Officers are from other departments, viz., Operating and Stores
departments, and, as such, the question of subordination to any other
committee member does not arise.
vi. It is clarified that the Divisional Commercial Manager(Co-ordination)
has independent charge and his APARs are reported by the Divisional
Railway Manager, like the other two officers and he is in no way
Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA
DN: C=IN, CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA, L=Hyderabad, O=
Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=Central Administrative Tribunal
Hyderabad Bench, ST=Telangana, [email protected],
postalCode=500004, serialNumber=
35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f41813a4
eb590082, street=No. 05-10-193, 1st Floor, HACA Bhavan,
Saifabad, Hyderabad, telephoneNumber=
ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfaa0a51
0742c22
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2026.10.26 16:36:09+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0
PANDIRLAPA
LLI SANDHYA

8
OA.No.650/2018

subordinate to any Jr. Administrative Officer of the said Committee.
Hence, the contention of the applicant that the Three Member
th
Committee, nominated the DCM(Co-ordination) as the 4 Member
though he was subordinate to other members of the Board, i.e.,
Sr.DOM and Sr.DMM, is denied. The contention of the applicant that,
only a Three Member Committee was nominated, excluding the
th
DCM(Coordination), as the 4 member, is baseless.
vii. It is stated that the applicant, on being found eligible for the selection,
attended the written test conducted on 20.01.2018 & 27.01.2018 and
qualified in the written test along with other 42 candidates. However,
he could not come out successful in the subsequent selection for
empanelment of Ticket Collectors. The applicant, knowingly or
unknowingly, is now mis-interpreting the rules and trying to take
advantage, out of surmises and conjectures. The applicant was
instrumental in filing OA No.64/2018 before this Tribunal. Having
failed to get the relief that he wanted, he has filed the instant OA just to
disrupt the proceedings, knowing fully well that he has not been
selected. The OA is not maintainable purely on technical grounds as
the applicant, after finding himself not selected, is raising the issue of
legality of the Selection Board which is not tenable.

6. The Applicant has filed a rejoinder, reiterating the submissions already made
in the OA and the MA. Taking forward his objection to the composition of
the Selection Board, it is contended by the Counsel for the Applicant in his
written arguments that the DCM(Co-Ord), Sri G. Suneel Kumar, is a Senior
Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA
DN: C=IN, CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA, L=Hyderabad, O=
Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=Central Administrative Tribunal
Hyderabad Bench, ST=Telangana, [email protected],
postalCode=500004, serialNumber=
35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f41813a4
eb590082, street=No. 05-10-193, 1st Floor, HACA Bhavan,
Saifabad, Hyderabad, telephoneNumber=
ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfaa0a51
0742c22
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2026.10.26 16:36:09+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0
PANDIRLAPA
LLI SANDHYA

9
OA.No.650/2018

Scale Officer, who is junior and subordinate in rank in relation to the other
member, Sr.DOM, Sri K.V.S.R.K.Kishore, IRTS, who is a Junior
Administrative Grade Officer, and is of a Senior/Superior Rank Officer.
Both the officers belong to the Traffic & Commercial Departments of the
Indian Railways. In support of the contention/pleadings, the Applicant has
submitted the Seniority List to show that Sri K.V.S.R.K. Kishore, Sr.DOM,
JAG officer of the Traffic Department is placed at Sr. No 10, while Sri
Geddam Suneel Kumar, Senior Scale Officer, is placed at Sl.No.18.
According to the applicant, the above position establishes the fact that the
DCM (Co-Ord) is a subordinate officer and, thus, there is every likelihood
of his getting dominated and influenced by the decisions of the senior
member, leading to violation of the principles of natural justice. Hence, the
entire selection proceedings are liable to be quashed and set aside on this
vital and essential ground alone.

7. The point regarding marks not being awarded to the applicant in Part-B/
Question-III/9, is also reiterated. Further, MA.130 of 2019 has been filed by
the applicant, praying for an amendment for grant of alternative relief by
declaring the Applicant as a selected candidate and directing the
Respondents to take suitable steps for incorporating his name at the
appropriate place in the selected panel, on the basis of the marks.

8. Heard both the parties and perused the materials placed on record.

9. It is to be noted that the initial relief was sought by questioning the formation
of the Selection Board for selection of candidates for promotion to the post
Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA
DN: C=IN, CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA, L=Hyderabad, O=
Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=Central Administrative Tribunal
Hyderabad Bench, ST=Telangana, [email protected],
postalCode=500004, serialNumber=
35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f41813a4
eb590082, street=No. 05-10-193, 1st Floor, HACA Bhavan,
Saifabad, Hyderabad, telephoneNumber=
ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfaa0a51
0742c22
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2026.10.26 16:36:09+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0
PANDIRLAPA
LLI SANDHYA

10
OA.No.650/2018

of TC/ECCA for which list of eligible candidates along with those who were
not eligible as well as staff who were provisionally eligible was circulated,
vide communication, dt.26.04.2017, of the office of DRM(Per.) East Coast
Railway, Waltair. The Syllabus & Question Bank for the written test for
selection to the promotional post had already been circulated. The relevant
guidelines for constitution of the Selection Board and its purpose are given in
the Indian Railway Establishment Manual, Vol-I, (Revised Edition-
1989), which reads as follows:
“ 217. Selection Boards

(a) Selection Boards shall be constituted for the purpose of making
recommendations to the competent authority in respect of the Railway
servant considered by it as suitable for filling a selection post.

(b) Selection Boards may be constituted under the orders of the General
Manager or Head of the Department or other competent authority, not
lower than a Divisional Railway Manager/Addl. Divisional Railway
Manager/Chief Workshop Manager.

(Railway Board’s letter No. E(NG)I/98/PM1/43 dt. 22.5.2000)

218. Constitution of Selection Boards

(a) Selection Boards shall consist of not less than three officers, one of
whom should be a Personnel Officer and one of the Members should be
from a Department other than that for which selection is held. The
presence of a Personnel Officer in the Selection Boards along with two
officers from the Department for which selection is held would meet the
requirement of an officer being from a Department other than that for
which selection is held.

(Railway Board’s letters No. E(NG)I/95/PM1/14 dated 03.03.98)

(b) When a Selection Board consist of only three Officers, none of the
members be directly subordinate to any other.

(c) For selection posts in scale of pay Rs.5500-9000(RSRP) and above,
the Selection Boards will consist of officers of Junior Administrative
Grade. For all other selection posts the Selection Board will consist of
officers not lower in rank than senior scale. In either case, except in the
case of selection for Personnel Department, the Selection Board may
include a Personnel Officer in the next lower rank who shall
nevertheless be an equal member of the Selection Board.

Note: In Divisions where JA Grade officers are not available in the
concerned Department, JA Grade Officers of any other Department may
be nominated as the members of the Selection Board, the senior scale
Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA
DN: C=IN, CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA, L=Hyderabad, O=
Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=Central Administrative Tribunal
Hyderabad Bench, ST=Telangana, [email protected],
postalCode=500004, serialNumber=
35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f41813a4
eb590082, street=No. 05-10-193, 1st Floor, HACA Bhavan,
Saifabad, Hyderabad, telephoneNumber=
ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfaa0a51
0742c22
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2026.10.26 16:36:09+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0
PANDIRLAPA
LLI SANDHYA

11
OA.No.650/2018

officer in independent charge of the concerned Department, who will
not be subordinate to any other Member of the Selection Board, being
nominated as the fourth Member who will also sign the selection
proceedings. In the case of selection for Personnel Department if there
is no JA Grade officer in the Personnel Department of a Division and
the post is Divisionally controlled, in addition to the senior scale
personnel officer of the Division, a JA Grade officer of the adjoining
Division or of the Headquarters may be included in the Selection Board.

(Board’s letter Nos.E(NG)I/95/PM1/14 dated 3.3.98 and 15.3.99)

219. Procedure to be adopted by Selection Board

(a) When a Selection post is to be filled, the authority empowered to
constitute a Selection Board shall direct to the Board to assemble and
make recommendations. It shall also nominate the Officer who shall act
as the Chairman of the Board. The responsibility for selection will be of
all members.

(b) An officer of the concerned Department who is also a member of
the Selection Board must be authorized to set the question paper for
written test, held as part of the selection for determining the
professional ability. Where possible another officer of the concerned
Department who is also a member of the Selection Board should be
nominated to evaluate the answer books ensuring, however, that the
answer books are invariably evaluated by a Member-Officer of the
Department for which Selection is held. The test should be conducted
on a confidential system with Roll numbers.

(Railway Board’s letter No. E(NG)I/95/PM1/14 dt. 3.3.98 and 07-08-03)”


10. The point of argument is that one Member, out of four, viz., the DCM (Co-
ord), a Sr.Scale Officer, was junior and subordinate in rank to another
Member, viz., Sr.DOM, an IRTS Officer in the Junior Administrative Grade.
According to the applicant, as per the seniority list of Sr.Scale and J.A.G.
Officers of the Traffic Department of the East Coast Railway in the Waltair
Division, supplied in response to his RTI application, the DCM(Co-ord) is
shown at Sl.No.18, whereas the Sr.Divl.Operations Manager (Sr.DOM),
K.V.S.R.K.Kishore, in JAG (Adhoc), is at Sl.No.10 and, therefore, the latter
is in a position to influence the DCM (Co-ord). According to him, such a
situation will seriously compromise the independence of the Junior Member
and, therefore, the whole procedure of selection was vitiated.

Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA
DN: C=IN, CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA, L=Hyderabad, O=
Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=Central Administrative Tribunal
Hyderabad Bench, ST=Telangana, [email protected],
postalCode=500004, serialNumber=
35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f41813a4
eb590082, street=No. 05-10-193, 1st Floor, HACA Bhavan,
Saifabad, Hyderabad, telephoneNumber=
ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfaa0a51
0742c22
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2026.10.26 16:36:09+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0
PANDIRLAPA
LLI SANDHYA

12
OA.No.650/2018

11. Per contra, Respondents have argued that there was no error or anomaly in
the appointment of the members as the Selection Board had been constituted
by the Competent Authority, as per the Railway Rules and Guidelines under
CPO GRC SE Rly Estt Srl No.266/1999 . It is also submitted that the Junior
Administrative Grade officers were from other departments, namely,
Operating and Stores Depts., and, as such, the question of subordination to
them does not arise in respect of the DCM (Co-ord). Railway Rules referred
to by the Respondents are as follows:
“3.4.4 For Selection to posts in scale 5500-9000 and above, the Selection Board
should consist of officers in Junior Administrative Grade. For other selections,
the Selection Board members can be in Senior Scale. However, in cases of
selections other than those pertaining to Personnel department, the Personnel
Officers in the committee can be one grade lower, i.e., in a committee of JAG
officers, the Personnel Officer can be in Senior Scale and in a committee of
Senior Scale officers, the Personnel Officers can be in Junior Scale/Group 'B'.

(PARA 218(c) of IREM and Board's letter
No. E(NG)I/95/PM1/14 dt. 15/3/99)

3.4.5. In divisions where the Senior Scale officers are in independent charge of
the department the constitution of the Selection Board for selections to posts in
scale 5500-9000 will be as under:-

(Note below Para 218(c) of IREM)

(i) Other than Personnel Department:

JAG officers from any other department in the division can be
nominated. Senior Scale Officer in independent charge of the department
who should not be subordinate to any other member of the Board will be the
fourth member of the Board.”


12. There is a categorical submission in the reply affidavit that the Divisional
Commercial Manager (Co-ord) holds independent charge and the Divisional
Railway Manager is the Reporting Officer for him and, like the other two
Members, he, too, is not subordinate to any other Member of the Committee.
It is also denied that the Board of four members was effectively a three-
member Committee.
Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA
DN: C=IN, CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA, L=Hyderabad, O=
Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=Central Administrative Tribunal
Hyderabad Bench, ST=Telangana, [email protected],
postalCode=500004, serialNumber=
35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f41813a4
eb590082, street=No. 05-10-193, 1st Floor, HACA Bhavan,
Saifabad, Hyderabad, telephoneNumber=
ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfaa0a51
0742c22
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2026.10.26 16:36:09+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0
PANDIRLAPA
LLI SANDHYA

13
OA.No.650/2018

13. There is an MA seeking amendment to the main relief, in order to declare the
applicant as selected. It has been argued that his answer sheet has not been
marked properly, whereby he has lost his chance to be selected. Had he
received 2 more marks, he would have overtaken two other candidates, viz.,
Sai Prasad and K.Madhu, who had secured 66 & 65.5 marks, respectively, as
the applicant had also secured 65.5 marks. He has claimed that he should
have got at least 2 marks more in Part-B of the Question Paper against
Question No.9 of III. It is obvious that the issue of marking in the
examination has been added, subsequently.

14. By interfering with the method of selection, including the method of
marking, as prayed for by the Applicant, this Tribunal would be venturing
into an area that has been frowned upon by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India. In CA.No.4970 of 2017, in U.P.Public Service Commission through
its Chairman & Anr. v. Sunil Kumar Singh & Ors., the Apex Court held,
in its order, dt.05.08.2026, as follows –
“4. According to Ms. Girdhar, the directions issued by the High Court are in
the teeth of a catena of decisions of this Court and cannot be sustained in law.
One of the decisions relied on by her in support of her contentions is Ran Vijay
Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh. This Court held that:

30. The law on the subject is therefore, quite clear and we only
propose to highlight a few significant conclusions. They are:

30.1. If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination
permits the re-evaluation of an answer sheet or scrutiny of an answer
sheet as a matter of right, then the authority conducting the
examination may permit it;

30.2. If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination does
not permit re-evaluation or scrutiny of an answer sheet (as distinct
from prohibiting it) then the court may permit re-evaluation or
scrutiny only if it is demonstrated very clearly, without any
Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA
DN: C=IN, CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA, L=Hyderabad, O=
Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=Central Administrative Tribunal
Hyderabad Bench, ST=Telangana, [email protected],
postalCode=500004, serialNumber=
35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f41813a4
eb590082, street=No. 05-10-193, 1st Floor, HACA Bhavan,
Saifabad, Hyderabad, telephoneNumber=
ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfaa0a51
0742c22
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2026.10.26 16:36:09+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0
PANDIRLAPA
LLI SANDHYA

14
OA.No.650/2018

"inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalisation"
and only in rare or exceptional cases that a material error has been
committed;

30.3. The court should not at all re-evaluate or scrutinise the answer
sheets of a candidate-it has no expertise in the matter and academic
matters are best left to academics;

30.4. The court should presume the correctness of the key answers
and proceed on that assumption; and

30.5. In the event of a doubt, the benefit should go to the
examination authority rather than to the candidate.

5. Having perused the impugned order, particularly in the light of the law
laid down by this Court in Ran Vijay Singh (supra) where various decisions
of the High Court are found to have been disapproved, the High Court in our
considered view exceeded the jurisdiction of a judicial review court in its
interference with the decision of experts in the academic field. The manner
of examination of the so-called dubious questions pertaining to different
topics by the High Court, as if it were an expert of experts, and in making the
directions it did are clearly indefensible.” (emphasis supplied)

15. Further, it is found that the applicant, having failed to pass the selection
process, has come up with one ground after the other to protest against the
th
same. The law in this regard is also well settled. In the judgment, dt.12
Dec., 2022, the Hon’ble Apex Court, has decided in the CA.Nos.8822-8823
of 2022, The State of Uttar Pradesh v. Karunesh Kumar & Ors ., that –
“21. ………59. It is also a settled position that the unsuccessful candidates
cannot turn back and assail the selection process. There are of course the
exceptions carved out by this Court to this general rule. This position was
reiterated by this Court in its latest judgment in Union of India v. S. Vinodh
Kumar [(2007) 8 SCC 100 : (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 792] ….The Court also
referred to the judgment in Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla
[1986 Supp SCC 285 : 1986 SCC (L&S) 644], where it has been held
specifically that when a candidate appears in the examination without protest
and subsequently is found to be not successful in the examination, the question
of entertaining the petition challenging such examination would not arise.”



Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA
DN: C=IN, CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA, L=Hyderabad, O=
Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=Central Administrative Tribunal
Hyderabad Bench, ST=Telangana, [email protected],
postalCode=500004, serialNumber=
35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f41813a4
eb590082, street=No. 05-10-193, 1st Floor, HACA Bhavan,
Saifabad, Hyderabad, telephoneNumber=
ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfaa0a51
0742c22
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2026.10.26 16:36:09+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0
PANDIRLAPA
LLI SANDHYA

15
OA.No.650/2018

16. From the above discussions, it is clear that there is no weight in the
arguments of the applicant regarding constitution of the Selection Board, nor
does he have any locus to challenge the marking of his answer sheet. Further,
questioning the position secured by other candidates, without arraying them
as necessary parties, cannot be allowed. Thus, the OA is found to be without
any merits and is, accordingly, dismissed. Interim order, dt.09.07.2018, is
vacated. Pending MAs, if any, stand closed. No order as to costs.


(Varun Sindhu Kul Kaumudi) (Manish Garg)
Administrative Member Judicial Member

13.10.2026

/ps/
Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA
DN: C=IN, CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA, L=Hyderabad, O=
Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=Central Administrative Tribunal
Hyderabad Bench, ST=Telangana, [email protected],
postalCode=500004, serialNumber=
35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f41813a4
eb590082, street=No. 05-10-193, 1st Floor, HACA Bhavan,
Saifabad, Hyderabad, telephoneNumber=
ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfaa0a51
0742c22
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2026.10.26 16:36:09+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0
PANDIRLAPA
LLI SANDHYA