Candidates scoring below the prescribed cutoff cannot claim appointment after completion of the recruitment process.

The applicant participated in the recruitment process conducted pursuant to Centralized Employment Notice No. 03/2012 issued by the Railway Recruitment Board (“RRB”) and appeared in the preliminary examination, which he cleared. He subsequently appeared in the second-stage written examination on 18.08.2013 for the notified railway posts.

As he received no response regarding his result, he had earlier approached the Tribunal in O.A. No. 350/0800/2014. That application was disposed of on 07.11.2014 with a direction to the respondents to pass a speaking order. The RRB thereafter issued a speaking order dated 29.12.2014, which was challenged in the present proceedings.

The applicant alleged that the question paper supplied to him under the Right to Information Act did not correspond correctly with the sequence and options in the booklet actually used by him, resulting in correct answers being treated as incorrect.

The respondents stated that the examination was conducted through OMR answer sheets and computer evaluation. The applicant’s booklet number, 4019835, identified his booklet as belonging to the Green Colour, Series C set.

Four questions in that set—Questions 77, 79, 99 and 108—were defective and were treated as unattempted in accordance with the applicable evaluation procedure.

The applicant’s score was calculated as 55 out of 116, converted to 56.90 out of 120, and remained 56.90 after normalization. This was below the applicable cut-off of 67.24 for OBC candidates called for the Aptitude Test.

The respondents further submitted that the selection process had been completed, panels had been issued, and all advertised vacancies had been filled.

The used question booklets had been disposed of in accordance with the preservation policy, although scanned copies had been retained.

Whether the Original Application was barred by limitation, having been filed more than one year after the applicant’s cause of action arose from the speaking order dated 29.12.2014?

Whether the applicant’s OMR answer sheet and examination responses had been incorrectly evaluated or matched with the wrong question-booklet series, warranting revaluation or reassessment?

Whether the applicant was entitled to be considered for appointment despite obtaining marks below the applicable cut-off and after completion of the recruitment process and filling of the advertised vacancies?

The Tribunal exercised jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, under which an aggrieved person may approach the Tribunal for redressal of service-related grievances.

It applied the principle that a challenge to an administrative decision must be brought within the prescribed limitation period; the respondents relied on the applicable one-year limitation period and the Tribunal accepted limitation as an additional ground for dismissal.

The Tribunal also applied the recruitment principle that a candidate who scores below the prescribed cut-off cannot ordinarily be called for the subsequent stage or appointed merely on the basis of a challenge to evaluation, absent proof of illegality or demonstrable error.

In relation to vacancies, it relied on Rakhi Ray & Ors. v. High Court of Delhi & Ors., Civil Appeal Nos. 1133–1135 of 2010, 2010 (2) SCR 239, for the rule that appointments cannot ordinarily be made beyond the number of advertised vacancies, since doing so would prejudice persons who become eligible subsequently and implicate Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution.

The Tribunal also accepted the prescribed RRB procedure for evaluation of multiple booklet series and defective questions, including the use of booklet numbers to correlate OMR sheets with the relevant answer key.

The Tribunal found no basis to interfere with the evaluation.

The applicant’s booklet number recorded on the OMR sheet was used to identify his examination set as the Green Colour, Series C booklet, and the respondents supplied the scanned copy corresponding to that booklet.

The applicant’s allegation that questions had been interchanged was not supported by material sufficient to displace the respondents’ explanation that the examination involved three colours and four jumbled series, each requiring correlation through the unique booklet number.

The four defective questions were excluded in accordance with the applicable evaluation method, and the resulting normalized score of 56.90 was substantially below the OBC cut-off of 67.24 for the Aptitude Test.

Consequently, the applicant had not established entitlement to revaluation, advancement to the next stage, or appointment.

The Tribunal additionally held that the challenge was delayed and that the completed selection process could not be reopened, particularly after the advertised vacancies had been filled.

The principle in Rakhi Ray also militated against granting appointment beyond the notified vacancies.

His score was below the applicable cut-off, and the recruitment process had already been completed with all advertised vacancies filled.

The Original Application was therefore dismissed on merits as well as on the ground of limitation, with no order as to costs.