Appointment from waiting lists and re-evaluation of answer sheets are impermissible absent specific enabling statutory rules.

The East Coast Railway invited applications via notification dated 24.02.2021 to fill 09 vacancies (07 UR, 02 SC) for the post of Junior Engineer (JE) under the 25% Intermediate Apprentice Quota

Following a written examination, a final panel was published on 06.09.2023

The candidate at Sl. No. 1, Simanta Kumar Mohanty, submitted his unwillingness to join

The Applicant, positioned at Sl. No. 8 (effectively the first standby candidate for UR), submitted representations seeking his inclusion in the panel due to Mohanty's refusal and alleged errors in the evaluation of four specific questions (Nos. 40, 60, 70, and 85) in his OMR sheet

During the pendency of the OA, the Respondents conducted a "rectification of mistakes," resulting in a revised panel dated 22.04.2024, which replaced some candidates but still excluded the Applicant

The Applicant challenged his non-selection and sought a direction for re-evaluation and promotion

1. Whether the Applicant is entitled to be incorporated into the final select panel as a "waitlisted" candidate following the refusal of a selected candidate to join

2. Whether the court can direct the re-evaluation of answer sheets and award marks for contested questions in the absence of specific statutory provisions

The Tribunal applied the Railway Board Master Circular No. 31 and Para 215, Note (2) of IREM Vol. I, which stipulates that additional candidates will not be called to compensate for those expressing unwillingness after the selection process commences

Regarding waitlists, the court relied on the Supreme Court precedent in Rajasthan Public Service Commission v. Yati Jain (2026 INSC 64), which held that a waiting list does not constitute a source of recruitment and its operation is subject to specific policy exigencies to prevent depriving future eligible candidates

Regarding re-evaluation, the court followed the doctrine established in H.P. Public Service Commission v. Mukesh Thakur & Anr. (AIR 2010 SC 2620), which mandates that re-evaluation of answer sheets cannot be ordered by a court/tribunal unless specific rules expressly permit it

The Tribunal observed that the Applicant failed to produce any rule or record mandating the preparation of a waiting or reserve list for the selection in question

Citing Yati Jain, the Tribunal reasoned that in the absence of such a rule, a candidate cannot claim a vested right to be "picked up" from a standby position simply because a selected candidate declined the offer

On the issue of evaluation errors, the Applicant’s prayer for the award of marks for specific questions (Nos. 40, 60, 70, and 85) was identified as a request for re-evaluation

Applying the Mukesh Thakur precedent, the Tribunal held that it lacks the authority to order re-evaluation where the recruitment rules are silent on the matter

Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that the revised panel of 22.04.2024 (which the Applicant sought to modify) had already been addressed in connected litigations (OA Nos. 278 & 291 of 2024), where the original panel of 06.09.2023 was upheld, rendering the Applicant’s prayer for inclusion in the revised list unsustainable

In the absence of specific rules for a waiting list, the refusal of a selected candidate does not automatically entitle the next candidate to empanelment

Re-evaluation is impermissible without an express rule allowing the same

All requested reliefs, including the modification of the select panel and directions for promotional training, were denied