Santosh Kumar Singh vs S E Railway
- Court
- Central Administrative Tribunal
1 O.A. No. 350/536/2021
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
KOLKATA BENCH, KOLKATA
O.A. No. 350/536/2021
Date of Hearing: 01.07.2026
Date of Order: 31.08.2026
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Anindo Majumdar, Administrative Member
Hon’ble Mr. Diwakar Singh, Judicial Member
In the matter of:-
Santosh Kumar Singh, S/o late
Hanuman Singh, aged about 43 years,
working as Technician-1, of Shop No.
26, Carriage Shops, Kharagpur
W/Shops residing at Holding 825/601,
Ward No.28, jhapatapur, Post-
Kharagpur, Dist- Paschim Medinipur,
Pin-721301, and West Bengal.
.........Applicant
-Versus-
1. Union of India, Through the
General Manager, South Eastern
Railway, Garden Reach, Kolkata-43.
2. Chief Mechanical Engineer,
S.E.Railway, Garden-Reach/Kolkata-
43.
3. Chief Works Manager -S.E.Railway,
Kharagpur Workshop Dist-
PaschimMedinipur.
4. Workshop Personnel Officer,
S.E.Railway, Kharagpur Workshop
PO-Kharagpur Pincode-721301.
5. Chief Personnel Officer,
S.E.Railway-Garden Reach-kolkata
43.
…….Respondents
For The Applicant(s): Mr. N. Roy; Counsel
Mr. M. S. S. Rao; Counsel
For The Respondent(s): Mr. S. K. Ghosh; Counsel
Digitally signed by Utkarsh Jha
DN: C=IN, O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=
Department of Personnel and Training, Phone=
a851c6412cda6db52ed568d6ca110c6700616c4eb
efeb5b49203412a39d11b0d, PostalCode=700020,
S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER=
Utkarsh 87702d895f8f8d9e54f67b1d9ffc368bb1bac7172b7
b88641da0dc7e71dd7d0a, CN=Utkarsh Jha
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2026.09.03 13:03:41+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0
Jha
2 O.A. No. 350/536/2021
O R D E R
Per: Mr. Anindo Majumdar , Member (A)
Heard Ld. Counsel on both the sides.
2. The present O.A. has been filed by the applicant under
Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the
following reliefs:-
“An order directing the Respondent to place the single evaluation sheet of
34 selected candidates prepared by the DPC before the Hon'ble Tribunal
to clarify the actual assessment ofmarks awarded on Record of service
under various heads such as Qualification, Record of service and APAR
(i) An order directing the respondents either to cancel the selection or to
amend the panel by including the applicant's name
(ii) An order directing the respondents to correct the assessment of marks
on the topic service record, upgrade the APARs and award of marks to
question No 1 of viii and in the event selection procedure is not cancelled
and thereby include the name of the applicant in the panel.
(iii) Any other relief which the Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in
the fact and circumstances of the case may be given in favour of the
applicant.;”
FACTS OF THE CASE:
2. A notification bearing No:SER/P-KGPW/Staff/210/IAM
(Mech)/532 dated 23.02.2017 (Annexure A/1) had been issued by
the Assistant Personnel Officer (G), Kharagpur Workshop, South
Eastern Railway, inviting applications to fill up 34 vacancies (UR-
26, SC-06, ST-02) for the post of Intermediate Apprentice
Mechanics (Mechanical Wing)/Junior Engineer (Mech.) against the
Digitally signed by Utkarsh Jha
DN: C=IN, O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=
Department of Personnel and Training, Phone=
a851c6412cda6db52ed568d6ca110c6700616c4eb
efeb5b49203412a39d11b0d, PostalCode=700020,
S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER=
Utkarsh 87702d895f8f8d9e54f67b1d9ffc368bb1bac7172b7
b88641da0dc7e71dd7d0a, CN=Utkarsh Jha
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2026.09.03 13:03:41+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0
Jha
3 O.A. No. 350/536/2021
25% promotional quota from amongst eligible rankers in erstwhile
Pay Band Rs. 9300-34800/- with Grade Pay Rs. 4200/-, i.e. Level-
th
6 of 7 CPC.
2.1. The applicant, who was then working as Technician-I in
Carriage Shop No. 26 under Dy. CME (Carriage Works), Kharagpur
Workshop, had submitted his application and was found eligible,
along with 319 other candidates, to appear in the written
examination held on 08.12.2018. The results of the written test
had been published on 01.09.2019 (Annexure A/2), wherein the
applicant had secured 69.50 marks out of 100.
2.2. On 30.06.2019 (Annexure A/3), the Workshop Personnel
Officer, Kharagpur, had drawn and published a provisional panel
containing the names of 34 empanelled candidates, wherein the
applicant’s name did not figure. The cut-off score secured by the
last empanelled candidate under the Unreserved (UR) category was
60.50 marks, whereas the applicant was awarded a total aggregate
of 56.75 marks (34.75 in Professional Ability, 13 in Educational
Qualification & Record of Service, and 09 in APARs).
2.3. Aggrieved by his non-empanelment, the applicant had
submitted a representation dated 09.07.2019 (Annexure A/5)
under the RTI Act seeking certified copies of his answer script,
APAR gradings, and selection tabulation sheets. Upon receiving
copies thereof on 03.09.2019 and 21.09.2019 (Annexure A/6
collectively), the applicant noticed several procedural anomalies:
Digitally signed by Utkarsh Jha
DN: C=IN, O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=
Department of Personnel and Training, Phone=
a851c6412cda6db52ed568d6ca110c6700616c4eb
efeb5b49203412a39d11b0d, PostalCode=700020,
S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER=
Utkarsh 87702d895f8f8d9e54f67b1d9ffc368bb1bac7172b7
b88641da0dc7e71dd7d0a, CN=Utkarsh Jha
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2026.09.03 13:03:41+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0
Jha
4 O.A. No. 350/536/2021
(i) His APARs for the years 2015-16, 2016-17, and 2017-18
(graded "Good", carrying 3 marks each, i.e. 9 out of 15) had
never been communicated to him prior to the DPC meeting;
(ii) The said APARs had been initiated by the Chief Office
Superintendent (Personnel) instead of the Canteen Manager
in violation of Estt. Srl. No. 76/2003;
(iii) A cash award and merit certificate awarded to him by the
Principal, Supervisor Training Centre (STC), Kharagpur, had
been ignored by the Selection Committee under the head of
Service Record; and
(iv) 1 mark had not been awarded to him for Question No.
1(viii) regarding Compensatory Casual Leave (CCL).
2.4. The applicant had submitted representations dated
25.02.2020 (Annexure A/9), 05.05.2020 (Annexure A/10), and
21.07.2020 (Annexure A/11) to the competent higher authorities.
As his grievances remained unaddressed, the applicant had
approached this Tribunal in O.A. No. 350/00546/2020. This
Tribunal, vide order dated 20.10.2020 (Annexure A/19), had
disposed of the said O.A. directing the competent authority to
decide the applicant’s representations by passing a reasoned and
speaking order.
2.5. In purported compliance thereof, the Workshop Personnel
Officer, Kharagpur, had passed the impugned Speaking Order
dated 30.01.2021 (Annexure A/20) turning down the applicant's
claim. In the said order, the respondent authority had explicitly
Digitally signed by Utkarsh Jha
DN: C=IN, O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=
Department of Personnel and Training, Phone=
a851c6412cda6db52ed568d6ca110c6700616c4eb
efeb5b49203412a39d11b0d, PostalCode=700020,
S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER=
Utkarsh 87702d895f8f8d9e54f67b1d9ffc368bb1bac7172b7
b88641da0dc7e71dd7d0a, CN=Utkarsh Jha
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2026.09.03 13:03:41+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0
Jha
5 O.A. No. 350/536/2021
admitted that the gradings of the applicant's APARs for the years
2015-16, 2016-17, and 2017-18 had not been communicated to
him, on the premise that none of the gradings contained anything
"adverse". Aggrieved thereby, the applicant instituted the present
Original Application.
2.6. On 19.07.2021, this Tribunal had granted interim relief in
terms of Paragraph 9 of the O.A., directing the respondents to keep
one post vacant till the finalization of the case, and the said interim
protection has continued to remain in operation.
CONTENTIONS OF THE APPLICANT:
3. Learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that the non-
communication of the applicant’s APAR gradings for the years
2015-16, 2016-17, and 2017-18 prior to convening the Selection
Committee/DPC was patently illegal and violative of the principles
of natural justice and fair play. Relying upon the decisions of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dev Dutt v. Union of India & Ors.
reported in (2008) 8 SCC 725 and R.K. Jibanlata Devi v. High
Court of Manipur (Registrar General) & Ors. reported in 2023
LiveLaw (SC) 139 , he contended that every entry in the ACR/APAR
must be communicated to the employee within a reasonable
period, and where uncommunicated, below-benchmark or lower
APARs are relied upon by the DPC, such uncommunicated APARs
must be ignored and substituted with available valid APARs of
preceding or subsequent years.
Digitally signed by Utkarsh Jha
DN: C=IN, O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=
Department of Personnel and Training, Phone=
a851c6412cda6db52ed568d6ca110c6700616c4eb
efeb5b49203412a39d11b0d, PostalCode=700020,
S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER=
Utkarsh 87702d895f8f8d9e54f67b1d9ffc368bb1bac7172b7
b88641da0dc7e71dd7d0a, CN=Utkarsh Jha
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2026.09.03 13:03:41+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0
Jha
6 O.A. No. 350/536/2021
3.1. Further, Learned Counsel for the applicant highlighted that
while the applicant was awarded a "Good" grading (carrying 3
marks per year) in the uncommunicated APARs, he had
consistently obtained "Outstanding" (carrying 5 marks per year) in
all subsequent communicated APARs (2018-19 to 2021-22).
Learned Counsel contended that had the uncommunicated APARs
been ignored or upgraded, the applicant would have secured an
additional 6 marks under the APAR head, taking his total well
beyond the cut-off mark of 60.50. He further contended that the
applicant's APARs had been initiated by an unauthorized officer,
i.e. Ch. OS/Personnel, without obtaining prior approval of the
General Manager as mandated under Estt. Srl. No. 76/2003, and,
that the DPC had arbitrarily ignored his commendation certificate
and cash award from the Supervisor Training Centre, Kharagpur.
CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS:
4. Learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that the
selection was conducted strictly in terms of Railway Board
guidelines contained in RBE No. 272/1999 and RBE No.
102/2002. The Selection Committee met on 30.06.2019, and since
the APARs for 2018-19 were not finalized by then, the APARs for
the immediately preceding three years (2015-16, 2016-17, and
2017-18) were taken into consideration.
4.1. Learned Counsel also contended that the applicant’s grading
in those three years was "Good", which was not an "adverse"
remark, and therefore, under the then administrative
Digitally signed by Utkarsh Jha
DN: C=IN, O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=
Department of Personnel and Training, Phone=
a851c6412cda6db52ed568d6ca110c6700616c4eb
efeb5b49203412a39d11b0d, PostalCode=700020,
S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER=
Utkarsh 87702d895f8f8d9e54f67b1d9ffc368bb1bac7172b7
b88641da0dc7e71dd7d0a, CN=Utkarsh Jha
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2026.09.03 13:03:41+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0
Jha
7 O.A. No. 350/536/2021
understanding, there was no requirement to communicate the
same to the employee. He submitted that the applicant was
working as Canteen Supervisor in GP Rs. 2800/-, and since the
Canteen Manager was officiating in a lower grade pay, the Chief
Office Superintendent (Personnel), being the administrative in-
charge, was competent to initiate the APARs.
4.2. He further argued that under RBE No. 102/2002, the
Selection Committee is fully empowered to lay down its own norms
for assessing records of service, and it had uniformly decided to
consider only awards conferred at the level of DRM/CWM (HOD)
and above during the preceding three years. Hence, the applicant's
training school award was not counted.
4.3. Lastly, Learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that
all 34 empanelled candidates had completed training and joined
their respective postings before the filing of this O.A., and
therefore, no vacancy was available in the cadre.
FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS:
5. We have carefully considered the pleadings, as well as, the
documents on record and the submissions made by both parties.
5.1. The undisputed fact that emerges from the record, and which
has been expressly admitted by the respondents in Paragraph 8 of
the impugned Speaking Order dated 30.01.2021, as well as, in
their pleadings, is that the applicant's APARs for the years 2015-
Digitally signed by Utkarsh Jha
DN: C=IN, O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=
Department of Personnel and Training, Phone=
a851c6412cda6db52ed568d6ca110c6700616c4eb
efeb5b49203412a39d11b0d, PostalCode=700020,
S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER=
Utkarsh 87702d895f8f8d9e54f67b1d9ffc368bb1bac7172b7
b88641da0dc7e71dd7d0a, CN=Utkarsh Jha
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2026.09.03 13:03:41+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0
Jha
8 O.A. No. 350/536/2021
16, 2016-17, and 2017-18 were never communicated to him prior
to the convening of the Selection Committee on 30.06.2019.
5.2. The justification advanced by the respondents that a "Good"
grading is not "adverse" and hence did not warrant communication
is wholly untenable in law. The Constitution Bench and various
authoritative pronouncements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court,
including Dev Dutt v. Union of India & Ors. (supra) and Abhijit
Ghosh Dastidar v. Union of India & Ors. [(2009) 16 SCC 146] ,
have firmly settled that every entry in an Annual Confidential
Report/APAR, whether poor, fair, average, or good, which has the
effect of reducing an employee's chances of promotion or
empanelment vis. a vis. a benchmark or comparative merit list, is
adverse in its civil consequences must be communicated to the
employee to afford him an opportunity of making a representation.
Non-communication of such entries violates Article 14 of the
Constitution and the principles of natural justice.
5.3. The legal consequence of utilizing uncommunicated APARs in
a selection has been squarely addressed by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in R.K. Jibanlata Devi v. High Court of Manipur
(Registrar General) & Ors. (supra) . The Hon’ble Apex Court had
held that where the DPC/Selection Committee has taken into
consideration uncommunicated ACRs/APARs, such
uncommunicated reports must be ignored, and the competent
authority must convene a Review DPC to consider the candidate
Digitally signed by Utkarsh Jha
DN: C=IN, O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=
Department of Personnel and Training, Phone=
a851c6412cda6db52ed568d6ca110c6700616c4eb
efeb5b49203412a39d11b0d, PostalCode=700020,
S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER=
Utkarsh 87702d895f8f8d9e54f67b1d9ffc368bb1bac7172b7
b88641da0dc7e71dd7d0a, CN=Utkarsh Jha
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2026.09.03 13:03:41+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0
Jha
9 O.A. No. 350/536/2021
afresh by taking into account the ACRs/APARs of the
remaining/preceding or subsequently communicated valid years.
5.4. In the instant case, the applicant was awarded only 09 marks
(3 marks per year for "Good" grading) out of 15 marks allocated for
APARs. In all subsequent years where APARs were duly
communicated (2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21, 2021-22), the
applicant consistently secured "Outstanding" gradings (worth 5
marks per year). The applicant was short of the cut-off mark by
3.75 marks (securing 56.75 against the cut-off of 60.50). Had the
uncommunicated APARs been ignored and the available valid
APARs considered in accordance with the law laid down in R.K.
Jibanlata Devi , the applicant would have secured a significantly
higher score, placing him comfortably above the qualifying cut-off
mark.
5.5. As a secondary aspect, we also note the applicant's
contentions that his APARs had been initiated by the Chief Office
Superintendent (Personnel) without placing on record the
mandatory approval of the General Manager as required under
Estt. Srl. No. 76/2003 for canteen staff, and that the Selection
Committee omitted to reckon his commendation certificate and
cash award from the Supervisor Training Centre, Kharagpur,
under the head of Service Record. While we do not rest our primary
decision on these grounds, these procedural infirmities reinforce
the necessity of a fresh, objective appraisal by a Review DPC.
Digitally signed by Utkarsh Jha
DN: C=IN, O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=
Department of Personnel and Training, Phone=
a851c6412cda6db52ed568d6ca110c6700616c4eb
efeb5b49203412a39d11b0d, PostalCode=700020,
S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER=
Utkarsh 87702d895f8f8d9e54f67b1d9ffc368bb1bac7172b7
b88641da0dc7e71dd7d0a, CN=Utkarsh Jha
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2026.09.03 13:03:41+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0
Jha
10 O.A. No. 350/536/2021
5.6. In view of the clear violation of the law declared by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding uncommunicated APARs, the
impugned Speaking Order dated 30.01.2021 cannot sustain
judicial scrutiny and is liable to be quashed.
CONCLUSION:
6. In the result, the instant O.A. is allowed. The impugned
Speaking Order dated 30.01.2021 passed by the Workshop
Personnel Officer, Kharagpur (Respondent No. 4) is hereby quashed
and set aside. The respondents are directed to convene a Review
Departmental Promotion Committee (Review DPC/Selection
Committee) within a period of twelve (12) weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order to re-assess the candidature of the
applicant, namely, Shri Santosh Kumar Singh, for the post of
Intermediate Apprentice Mechanics (Mechanical Wing)/Junior
Engineer (Mech.) against the 25% quota pursuant to the
notification dated 23.02.2017.
6.1. The Review DPC shall re-assess the applicant’s Record of
Service and APAR marks by strictly adhering to the ratio laid down
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dev Dutt v. Union of India
(supra) and R.K. Jibanlata Devi v. High Court of Manipur
(supra) by ignoring the uncommunicated APARs for the years
2015-16, 2016-17, and 2017-18, and taking into consideration the
valid and communicated APARs of the applicant. If upon such re-
assessment the applicant secures marks equal to or higher than
the cut-off mark of the last empanelled candidate (60.50 marks),
Digitally signed by Utkarsh Jha
DN: C=IN, O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=
Department of Personnel and Training, Phone=
a851c6412cda6db52ed568d6ca110c6700616c4eb
efeb5b49203412a39d11b0d, PostalCode=700020,
S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER=
Utkarsh 87702d895f8f8d9e54f67b1d9ffc368bb1bac7172b7
b88641da0dc7e71dd7d0a, CN=Utkarsh Jha
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2026.09.03 13:03:41+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0
Jha
11 O.A. No. 350/536/2021
the respondents shall empanel him against the post of
Intermediate Apprentice Mechanic (JE/Mech 25% quota) by
utilizing the one vacancy kept reserved pursuant to this Tribunal's
Interim Order dated 19.07.2021, with all consequential seniority
and notional pay fixation benefits from the date his
batchmates/juniors were empanelled.
6.2. In the event the respondents contend that all notified
vacancies had already been filled and no physical vacancy could be
kept available despite the interim order of this Tribunal, then the
respondents are directed to create a supernumerary post of
Intermediate Apprentice Mechanic/Junior Engineer (Mech.) for
accommodating the applicant, so as to ensure that the legitimate
relief granted to him is not frustrated.
7. With these directions, the O.A. is disposed of without any
order as to costs.
(Diwakar Singh) (Anindo Majumdar)
Member (J) Member (A)
UJ
Digitally signed by Utkarsh Jha
DN: C=IN, O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=
Department of Personnel and Training, Phone=
a851c6412cda6db52ed568d6ca110c6700616c4eb
efeb5b49203412a39d11b0d, PostalCode=700020,
S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER=
Utkarsh 87702d895f8f8d9e54f67b1d9ffc368bb1bac7172b7
b88641da0dc7e71dd7d0a, CN=Utkarsh Jha
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2026.09.03 13:03:41+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0
Jha