ANIL KUMAR SINGH vs RAILWAY

Court
Central Administrative Tribunal

- 1- OA/050/00072/2017

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PATNA BENCH, PATNA
OA/050/00072/2017

Reserved on: 31.08.2026
Pronounced on: 04.09.2026

CORAM
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JOHARI, MEMBER (J)
HON’BLE MR. KUMAR RAJESH CHANDRA, MEMBER (A)

Anil Kumar Singh, Technician-I (Telecom), Under Senior Section Engineer
(Telecom), North Frontier Railway, Katihar Division, Katihar (Bihar).
……..Applicant.

- By Advocate(s): - Shri M.P. Dixit

-Versus-

1. The Union of India through the General Manager, North Frontier Railway,
Maligaon (Guahati).
2. The General Manager (P), North Frontier Railway, Maligaon (Guahati).
3. The Divisional Railway Manager, North Frontier Railway, Katihar (Bihar).
4. The Divisional Railway Manager (P), North Frontier Railway, Katihar
(Bihar).
5. The Senior Divisional & Signal Engineer, North Frontier Railway, Katihar
(Bihar).
6. The Senior Divisional Financial Manager, North Frontier Railway, Katihar
(Bihar).
7. Shri Prashant Kumar, Junior Engineer (Telecomm) under the Administrative
Control of Senior Divisional & Signal Engineer, North Frontier Railway,
Katihar (Bihar).

…….Respondents.


By Advocate(s) :- Shri T.N. Thakur, Sr. SC for UOI
Shri Radhika Raman, ASC
Shri G. Bose, for Pvt. Respondent no. 7.



O R D E R

Per: Kumar Rajesh Chandra, Member (A):-
This OA has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals
Act, 1985 seeking the following relief:-
Digitally signed
SURYAR
by SURYAROOP
KABI
OOP KABI

- 2- OA/050/00072/2017

“(i) That your Lordships may graciously be pleased to hold and declare
the promotion of Respondent No. 7 to the post of Junior Engineer
(Telecomm) in Pay Band Rs. 9300-34800/- Grade Pay of Rs. 4200/- vide
order dated 18.11.2016 as contained in Annexure-A/9 as null, void, ab
initio wrong, contrary to the answer prescribed in the answer sheet and
also contrary to the directive of this Hon’ble Court as contained in
Annexure-A/8 and as such the said promotion of Respondent No. 7 as
contained in Annexure-A/9 be quashed and set aside.
(ii) That your Lordships may further be pleased to direct the respondents
to issue order of promotion to the post of Junior Engineer (Telecomm)
in Pay Band Rs. 9300/- Rs. 34,800/- Grade Pay of Rs. 4,200 henceforth
on the basis of his marks as per the Answer Sheet enclosed herewith as
contained in Annexure-A/6 Series and also on the basis of marks in the
Service Record as contained in Annexure-A/3 with all consequential
benefits including statutory interest.
(iii) Any other relief or reliefs including the cost of the proceeding may
be allowed in favour of the Applicant for which he is legally entitled to.”
2. For the sake of clarity, the brief facts of the case, as stated by the
applicant, is being discussed and delineated as under:-
(i) In pursuance of notification issued by respondent no. 4 for
promotion through selection under 20% Limited Departmental
Competitive Examination (LDCE) quota for one post of Junior Engineer
(Telecomm) in the Pay Band of Rs. 9300-34800/- GP 4200, the applicant,
a Technician-I (Telecomm), appeared in the written examination held on
06.01.2012 along with 12 other candidates.
(ii) It is submitted that in the said examination, mode of selection was
only through written examination and record of service. The written
examination was to be conducted in the form of testing professional ability
in two papers, i.e. Paper-I for 100 marks and Paper-II for 50 marks while
record of service carried 30 marks.
(iii) The applicant has contended that before publication of the written
examination, the competent authority considered the representations of the
applicant dated 01.03.2011 and 14.12.2011 (Annexures- A/1 & A/2)
against his Grading ‘Good’ in ACR for the period 2009-10 and vide order
dated 12.03.2012 (Annexure-A/3) the grading ‘Good’ has been upgraded
to ‘Outstanding’ in his ACR for the period 2009-10. The same was duly
communicated to the respondent no. 4 as well as to the applicant. It is
further contended that consequent upon upgradation of ACR for the period
2009-10 to Outstanding and the ACR for the period 2008-09 and 2010-11
Digitally signed
SURYAR
by SURYAROOP
KABI
OOP KABI

- 3- OA/050/00072/2017

being also ‘Outstanding’, the applicant was placed under the zone of
consideration for the said promotion/selection.
(iv) The applicant has further submitted that earlier he was allotted 125
marks out of total marks of 150 in the written examination and 26 marks
in record of service (125+26= 151 total marks). The marks in record of
service was subsequently enhanced to 30 after upgradation of ACR
making the total marks secured by him as 155 (125+30), whereas
respondent no. 7 secured a total of 151 marks (123+28).
It is alleged by the applicant that since the respondent no. 4 was
very much interested to grant promotion to respondent no. 7 he instead of
issuing promotion order in favour of the applicant cancelled the said
examination vide letter dated 15.03.2012(Anneuxre-A/4) taking the plea
that recognized employees Union are intervening in the matter which,
according to the applicant, is far from truth.
(v) The applicant challenged the above order dated 15.03.2012 before
this Tribunal in OA No. 282 of 2012. During the pendency of this OA the
applicant sought his answer sheet and that of respondent no. 7 under RTI
Act which was supplied to him vide letter dated 29.05.2012 (Annexure-
A/6 Series). Looking at the same answer sheet, the applicant raises
suspicion regarding marking of the answers which resulted into
reduction/non allotment/interpolation of marks in respect of the applicant.
Referring to some of the answers, the applicant has further alleged that
respondent no. 7 was given higher marks in comparison to the marks
allotted to him though respondent no. 7 had given wrong answer to some
of the questions as per the answer key.
(vi) The said OA No. 282 of 2012 was allowed by this Tribunal vide
order dated 28.08.2013 whereby the order as contained in Annexure-A/4
and A/5 were set aside with direction to the respondents to appoint a fresh
Evaluator and accordingly publish the result. The official respondents
thereafter approached Hon’ble High Court of Patna challenging the said
order dated 28.08.2013 vide CWJC No. 24020 of 2013 which was
disposed of on 02.11.2015 (Annexure-A/7) remitting the matter to the
Tribunal to hear the same after impleadment of respondent no. 7 as party
respondent. After impleadment of respondent no. 7, written statement on
his behalf and rejoinder thereto have been filed by the respective parties.
Digitally signed
SURYAR
by SURYAROOP
KABI
OOP KABI

- 4- OA/050/00072/2017

(vii) It is further averred by applicant that in the meantime OA No. 282
of 2012 was finally heard on 09.08.2016 and order dated 12.08.2016
(Annexure-A/8) was passed whereby this Tribunal after quashing the
cancellation of entire examination together with Tabulation Sheet dated
18.04.2012 as contained in Anneuxre-A/4 and A/5 respectively, directed
the respondents to appoint a fresh Evaluator and to complete the process
of re-evaluation of the answer sheets of the Applicant and Private
Respondent No. 7 and to publish the result after taking into consideration
other connected materials as per their departmental norms and guidelines.
(viii) The applicant was surprised to know the impugned result dated
18.11.2016 (Annexure-A/9 issued by the respondent no. 4 whereby the
respondent no. 7 has been ordered to be promoted to the post of Junior
Engineer (Telecomm) against the notification dated 30.08.2011 under 20%
LDCE quota which, according to the applicant, is not only unjust, illegal,
arbitrary, ill motivated, punitive, unconstitutional but also against the
order passed by this Tribunal on 12.08.2016 in OA No. 282/2012.
(ix) The applicant has alleged that before filing of the OA No. 282 of
2012 his marks have been shown as 81 but after disposal of the said OA
on 28.08.2013 and after order of Hon’ble High Court on 02.11.2015 his
marks were reduced intentionally to 79 and again after final disposal of
OA No. 282 of 2012 after remand by Hon’ble High Court his marks have
been reduced to 78. As such, his total marks which was earlier 125 has
been reduced to 119, whereas the marks obtained by respondent no. 7 as
123 remained unchanged with intention to favour him in spite of the fact
that he was given marks even against wrong answers as per the answer
key which can be seen from the answer sheets of the applicant and
respondent no. 7 obtained under RTI Act on 29.05.2012. It is further
alleged that when the applicant represented for supply of the answer key
and marks allotted after re-evaluation in favour of respondent no. 7 the
same was not supplied to him which is evident from letter dated
19.12.2016. Reply of the respondents under RTI Act dated 28.12.2016 is
annexed as Annexure-A/10 to the OA.
(x) Aggrieved by non supply of the re-evaluated answer sheets of the
respondent no. 7 and requesting to call for the same in the interest of
justice and equity, the instant OA has been filed with the aforesaid reliefs.
3. The official respondents in their written statement have submitted as
follows:-
Digitally signed
SURYAR
by SURYAROOP
KABI
OOP KABI

- 5- OA/050/00072/2017

(i) The statement of the applicant that he had submitted one
representation to competent authority is doubtful which is evident from
letter dated 02.03.2012. It appears from the said letter that the applicant
st
has submitted his 1 representation on 14.12.2011, i.e. after a gap of
nd
around 10 months. Then he preferred 2 representation (Reminder-I)
dated 15.02.2012 (Annexure-R/1 Series) and in both the representations
dated 14.12.2011 & 15.02.2012 the applicant did not make reference of
his letter/representation dated 01.03.2011.
(ii) It is further submitted that written test for the selection was held on
06.01.2012 and the tabulation sheet was prepared on 27.02.2012 in which
all members of the Committee made signature after going through the
marks obtained by the candidates in the written examination and record of
service. After that one of the Committee Member cut his own signature
having foot note “ Pl do the calculation 150+30=180 marks’ with clear
signature again on 27.02.2012. One of the Members of the Selection
Committee upgraded the APAR of the applicant from ‘Good’ to
‘Outstanding’ on 12.03.2012, i.e. after 27.02.2012.
(iii) The respondents have averred that in the first evaluation, the
applicant got 125 marks out of 150 and the private respondent no. 7 got
123 marks out of 150. In compliance of order of this Tribunal dated
12.08.2016 in OA No. 282 of 2012, fresh evaluator was appointed and
answer sheets were re-evaluated with clear signature of the fresh evaluator
on the answer sheet in original. This time applicant got 119 marks out of
150 and the private respondent no. 7 got 123 marks out of 150. The
applicant secured 26 marks out of 30 in service record considering his
APAR for 2009-10 as ‘Good’. The ‘Outstanding’ APAR of the applicant
for the said period was not considered by panel approving authority
because it was upgraded during selection process and the private
respondent no. 7 secured 28 marks out of 30 in service record. The
respondents have specifically stated that the respondent no. 4 has no role
in the evaluation process in any manner.
(iv) The respondents have further submitted that as per Railway extant
rules, evaluator should be an officer of department concerned only.
Accordingly, one Signal and Telecomm Officer was nominated as
evaluator. Moreover, the upgradation of APAR was time barred as per
DoP&T OM dated 14.05.2009 (Annexure-R/2).
Digitally signed
SURYAR
by SURYAROOP
KABI
OOP KABI

- 6- OA/050/00072/2017

(v) In pursuance of Hon’ble Patna High Court’s order dated
02.11.2015 passed in CWJC No. 24020 of 2013 and in compliance of
order dated 12.08.2016 passed by this Tribunal in OA No. 282 of 2012,
the respondents completed all the formalities within the stipulated period
and the result of written test held on 06.01.2012 was published in which
Shri Prashant Kumar (Private Respondent No. 7) was empanelled for the
post of J.E./Tele in level -6, i.e. Pay Band-2 Grade Pay 4200/- against 20%
LDCE quota. The panel was also approved by the competent authority on
15.11.2016 accordingly.
(vi) While submitting that the fresh evaluator was nominated by the
headquarter Maligaon and not by the Divisional head at Katihar; that the
order of this Tribunal has been complied with in true spirit and that
photocopies of answer sheets of Respondent No. 7 were not provided in
rd
reply dated 19.12.2016 to applicant being 3 party information under RTI
rd
Act as 3 party did not consent for giving photo copies of answer sheet,
the respondents have prayed for dismissal of the OA.
4. The private respondent no. 7 has also filed written statement in which it is
stated that the instant OA is barred under the principles of res judicata and also
due to non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties.
4.1 It is further submitted that for consideration of promotion for the post of
LDCE quota of Junior Engineer (Telecomm), a committee of three Junior
Administrative Grade Officers, two from the concerned department, i.e. Signal
and Telecommunication and one from the Personnel Department was formed. As
such, the formation of Selection Committee was as per Para 219 (a) (b) of the
Indian Railways Establishment Manual Volume-I. The office order dated
26.12.2011 (Annexure-R/1) issued by the Sr. DPO (Katihar) will reveal that the
Sr. DSTE/Kir, Senior DSO/Katihar and Senior DPO/Katihar were nominated as
members of the Selection Committee.
4.2 The private respondent no. 7 has also questioned the upgradation of
applicant’s APAR on 12.03.2012 which was upgraded without any valid reason.
He has also questioned if this was really done on 12.03.2012, then why it was not
shown at the time of the meeting of the departmental committee on 13.03.2012.
Digitally signed
SURYAR
by SURYAROOP
KABI
OOP KABI

- 7- OA/050/00072/2017

The cancellation of the selection was recommended on 15.03.2012 as the
Committee apprehended some mischief in the matter.
4.3 The private respondent no. 7 has also referred to para-15 of his written
statement filed in OA No. 282 of 2012 wherein details of marks has been given
and submitted that he had obtained 2 marks more than the applicant.
4.4 The private respondent no. 7 has also denied that fresh evaluator has got
any personal attachment with any of the parties and thus free from any bias.
Therefore, the question of interference in his re-evaluation does not arise. He has
prayed for dismissal of the OA accordingly.
5. Rejoinder to the written statement of official respondents as well as
private respondent no. 7 has been filed by the applicant wherein he has denied the
contention of the respondents and reiterated the contentions as made in the OA.
The applicant has also questioned the authenticity of grant of marks in APAR in
respect of the applicant and private respondent no. 7 in para-6 of his rejoinder.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the
records, we have considered the matter in its entirety and come to the following
conclusion:-
6.1 The applicant has filed the present Original Application under Section 19
of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking, principally, quashing of the
promotion of respondent No. 7 to the post of Junior Engineer (Telecom) under the
20% Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) quota vide order
dated 18.11.2016 and a consequential direction for his own promotion on the
basis of the marks claimed by him.
6.2 The controversy in the present O.A. has its genesis in the selection
initiated pursuant to notification dated 30.08.2011 for one post of Junior Engineer
(Telecom) under the 20% LDCE quota. The applicant, then working as
Digitally signed
SURYAR
by SURYAROOP
KABI
OOP KABI

- 8- OA/050/00072/2017

Technician-I (Telecom), participated in the written examination held on
06.01.2012. The selection comprised written examination and record of service.
The respondents, however, cancelled the selection process by order dated
15.03.2012. The applicant challenged the said action before this Tribunal in O.A.
No. 282/2012.
O.A. No. 282/2012 ultimately culminated in the order dated 12.08.2016,
passed after the matter had been remitted by the Hon'ble Patna High Court in
C.W.J.C. No. 24020/2013. The Tribunal quashed the cancellation of the
examination and the consequential tabulation and directed the respondents to
appoint a fresh evaluator, undertake fresh evaluation of the answer sheets of the
applicant and respondent No. 7 and publish the result in accordance with the
applicable departmental norms and guidelines.
6.3 Pursuant thereto, the respondents appointed a fresh evaluator from the
Signal and Telecommunication Department at Headquarters, Maligaon. On such
fresh evaluation, the applicant obtained 119 marks out of 150, whereas respondent
No. 7 obtained 123 marks. For record of service, the applicant was awarded 26
marks and respondent No. 7 was awarded 28 marks. Thus, the applicant secured
145 marks in all, whereas respondent No. 7 secured 151 marks. Respondent No. 7
was accordingly empanelled and promoted vide order dated 18.11.2016.
The applicant has challenged the aforesaid result principally on the ground
that his marks were deliberately reduced during re-evaluation and that respondent
No. 7 had been awarded marks for answers which, according to the applicant,
were incorrect with reference to the answer key. He has also contended that his
upgraded APAR ought to have been taken into account while awarding marks for
record of service.
The official respondents have opposed the O.A. contending that the fresh
evaluation was undertaken strictly in compliance with the final order dated
Digitally signed
SURYAR
by SURYAROOP
KABI
OOP KABI

- 9- OA/050/00072/2017

12.08.2016 in O.A. No. 282/2012that was passed after the order of the Hon’ble
High Court of Patna in CWJC 24020/2013 that had set aside the initial order dated
28.08.2013 in this O.A. and directed the Tribunal to implead Sri Prashant Kumar
as a party respondent before passing a fresh order.
6.4 They have further stated that the fresh evaluator was nominated from
Headquarters and had no role in the earlier evaluation. It is also their case that the
applicant's APAR grading was upgraded only after the selection process had
substantially progressed and that the upgraded grading was not liable to be
retrospectively introduced into the selection.
Respondent No. 7 has also opposed the O.A., contending, inter alia, that
the selection was conducted in accordance with the applicable Railway procedure
and that the applicant has failed to establish any mala fide, bias or illegality in the
fresh evaluation.
6.5 The first issue requiring consideration is whether the fresh evaluation
undertaken pursuant to the order dated 12.08.2016 in O.A. No. 282/2012 suffers
from any illegality, arbitrariness, mala fide or violation of the directions issued by
this Tribunal.The answer is in the negative in view of the facts of the case.
The earlier order of the Tribunal did not direct that the applicant should be
awarded the marks obtained by him in the original evaluation. It directed a fresh
evaluation by a fresh evaluator. The respondents have complied with that
direction by appointing a fresh evaluator from Headquarters and by obtaining a
fresh assessment of the answer sheets of both the applicant and respondent No. 7.
The resultant marks were 119 for the applicant and 123 for respondent No. 7.
It is well settled that in matters involving evaluation of answers in a
competitive examination, a Tribunal exercising judicial review does not ordinarily
sit as an appellate examiner or undertake an independent evaluation of the answer
sheets. Interference is justified where the evaluation is shown to be contrary to the
Digitally signed
SURYAR
by SURYAROOP
KABI
OOP KABI

- 10- OA/050/00072/2017

prescribed procedure, demonstrably erroneous, arbitrary, mala fide or otherwise
vitiated by a legally recognizable infirmity.
The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sachit Kumar Singh & Ors.
v. State of Jharkhand & Ors., Civil Appeal Nos. 2793-98 of 2023 decided on
28.04.2023, relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant, arose in a factual
setting where specific objections to answers had been raised and the Supreme
Court found that the matter warranted consideration with the assistance of expert
opinion. The principle emerging from the judgment is that a genuine and
substantiated challenge to the correctness of answers cannot be rejected merely on
a technical ground where consideration of expert opinion is necessary.
The present case stands on a different footing. The applicant's challenge to
the original evaluation had already been considered in O.A. No. 282/2012 and,
pursuant to the final directions therein, a fresh evaluation by a fresh evaluator has
actually taken place. The applicant has not produced any independent expert
opinion or other legally cogent material establishing that the fresh evaluator
adopted an incorrect answer key, ignored the prescribed key, awarded marks
contrary to the prescribed scheme, or otherwise acted arbitrarily.
Mere comparison of the applicant's answers with his own understanding of
the correct answers cannot, by itself, furnish a sufficient basis for this Tribunal to
substitute its assessment for that of the duly appointed evaluator. The applicant
has also not established that the fresh evaluator was biased against him or had any
connection with respondent No. 7 which could reasonably give rise to an
apprehension of partiality.
The allegation that the applicant's marks were intentionally reduced from
125 to 119 is also not sufficient, by itself, to establish mala fide. The very purpose
of the fresh evaluation directed by the Tribunal was to obtain an independent
assessment. A variation between the marks awarded in two evaluations is not, in
itself a proof of manipulation or misconduct. What is material is whether the
Digitally signed
SURYAR
by SURYAROOP
KABI
OOP KABI

- 11- OA/050/00072/2017

second evaluation was undertaken by the evaluator in accordance with the
prescribed procedure. No convincing material has been placed before us to
establish otherwise.
The applicant has placed reliance upon answer sheets obtained under the
Right to Information Act and has sought comparison with the marks awarded to
respondent No. 7. We are conscious that a demonstrably incorrect answer key or a
patently erroneous evaluation may warrant judicial intervention in an appropriate
case. However, such intervention must rest upon objective material establishing
the error. The Tribunal cannot undertake a roving exercise of re-evaluating every
answer merely because the applicant disputes the marks awarded by the evaluator.
6.6 The second issue concerns the applicant's claim that his APAR for the
year 2009-10, having subsequently been upgraded from "Good" to "Outstanding"
on 12.03.2012, ought to have resulted in award of 30 marks instead of 26 marks in
the record-of-service component.
The material placed before us shows that the original tabulation was
prepared on 27.02.2012, whereas the applicant's APAR was upgraded on
12.03.2012. Thus, the relevant grading was altered after the selection process had
already reached the stage of preparation of the tabulation.
A candidate participating in a selection is entitled to consideration in
accordance with the applicable rules and the criteria governing the selection at the
relevant stage of consideration. In the present case, the specific question is
whether, after the selection process had proceeded on the basis of the record then
available, a subsequent upgradation of the APAR automatically entitled the
applicant to retrospective revision of the marks awarded in the selection. The
applicant has not shown any applicable statutory rule, Railway instruction or
binding provision requiring such retrospective alteration in the circumstances of
the present selection.
Digitally signed
SURYAR
by SURYAROOP
KABI
OOP KABI

- 12- OA/050/00072/2017

The respondents have stated that the upgraded APAR was not taken into
account because the upgradation occurred after the relevant stage of the selection
and was not treated as part of the record available for assessment. In the absence
of a specific rule requiring retrospective incorporation of the subsequent
upgradation, we find no legal infirmity in the decision of the respondents.
We also find no merit in the submission that the subsequent upgradation of
the APAR necessarily conferred upon the applicant a vested right to 30 marks.
Upgradation of an APAR grading and entitlement to a particular number of marks
in a selection are two distinct matters. The latter is governed by the selection rules
and the stage at which the record of service is required to be assessed.
6.7 The comparative position after fresh evaluation is as follows:
Particulars Applicant Respondent No. 7
Written examination 119/150 123/150
Record of service 26/30 28/30
Total 145/180 151/180

On the basis of the above assessment, respondent No. 7 secured six marks
more than the applicant. The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the marks
awarded to respondent No. 7 were the result of an unlawful or arbitrary process.
Consequently, the promotion of respondent No. 7 cannot be quashed merely
because the applicant believes that he should have secured higher marks.
6.8 The applicant has also challenged the non-supply of the re-evaluated
answer sheet of respondent No. 7. The respondents have stated that the document
was treated as third-party information and was not supplied without the requisite
process under the Right to Information Act. In any event, the question of
disclosure under the RTI Act is distinct from the question whether the impugned
promotion is legally sustainable. No material has been shown before us from
Digitally signed
SURYAR
by SURYAROOP
KABI
OOP KABI

- 13- OA/050/00072/2017

which it can be concluded that non-supply of the document has caused any legally
established prejudice to the applicant in the present proceedings.
6.9 We further find that the respondents have substantially complied with the
operative directions issued in O.A. No. 282/2012. The earlier order required fresh
evaluation; it did not direct that the applicant be declared successful or that the
marks obtained in the original evaluation be restored. The fresh evaluation has
been carried out and the result has thereafter been considered by the competent
authority.
The review by this Tribunal is concerned principally with the legality of
the decision-making process and not with substituting the decision of the Tribunal
for that of the authority entrusted with the evaluation unless of course, the
decision is shown to be arbitrary, irrational, mala fide, procedurally unfair or
contrary to the governing rules. Thus, interference with the decision of the
respondents is not warranted.
7. Accordingly, we find no legally sustainable ground to interfere with the
promotion order dated 18.11.2016 issued in favour of respondent No. 7 and the
Original Application is dismissed for the foregoing reasons,
8. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Kumar Rajesh Chandra) (Justice Narendra Kumar Johari)
Member (A) Member(J)

Srk.
Digitally signed
SURYAR
by SURYAROOP
KABI
OOP KABI