Judicial review cannot substitute fresh examination evaluation absent demonstrable arbitrariness, procedural illegality, or mala fides.

The applicant, a Technician-I (Telecom) in North Frontier Railway, participated in a selection conducted under the 20% Limited Departmental Competitive Examination quota for one post of Junior Engineer (Telecom). The selection comprised a written examination carrying 150 marks and assessment of record of service carrying 30 marks.

In the initial evaluation, the applicant secured 125 marks in the written examination and Respondent No. 7 secured 123 marks. The applicant claimed that, after his APAR grading for 2009–10 was upgraded from “Good” to “Outstanding,” his record-of-service marks should have increased from 26 to 30.

The respondents cancelled the selection on 15 March 2012. The applicant challenged the cancellation in OA No. 282/2012. By order dated 12 August 2016, the Tribunal quashed the cancellation and directed appointment of a fresh evaluator, fresh evaluation of the answer sheets of the applicant and Respondent No. 7, and publication of the result in accordance with the applicable norms and guidelines.

Upon fresh evaluation, the applicant obtained 119/150 marks in the written examination and 26/30 marks for record of service, while Respondent No. 7 obtained 123/150 and 28/30 respectively. Respondent No. 7 consequently secured 151/180 marks against the applicant’s 145/180 marks and was promoted as Junior Engineer (Telecom) by order dated 18 November 2016.

Whether the fresh evaluation conducted pursuant to the Tribunal’s order dated 12 August 2016 was arbitrary, mala fide, procedurally defective, or otherwise legally unsustainable?

Whether the applicant’s subsequent APAR upgradation from “Good” to “Outstanding” entitled him to retrospective enhancement of his record-of-service marks from 26 to 30?

Whether the non-supply of Respondent No. 7’s re-evaluated answer sheet vitiated the promotion process or caused legally established prejudice to the applicant?

Whether Respondent No. 7’s promotion dated 18 November 2016 was liable to be quashed and the applicant directed to be promoted?

The Tribunal exercised jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

It applied the principle that judicial review of evaluation in a competitive examination is limited to examining the legality and fairness of the decision-making process; the Tribunal does not ordinarily act as an appellate examiner or substitute its own assessment for that of the duly appointed evaluator. Interference is warranted only where the evaluation is contrary to the prescribed procedure, demonstrably erroneous, arbitrary, mala fide, procedurally unfair, or otherwise vitiated by a legally recognisable infirmity.

The Tribunal considered Sachit Kumar Singh & Ors. v. State of Jharkhand & Ors., Civil Appeal Nos. 2793–2798 of 2023, decided on 28 April 2023, but distinguished it on the ground that, unlike that case, the applicant had not produced independent expert material establishing an incorrect answer key or demonstrably erroneous evaluation.

The Tribunal further applied the principle that a later alteration in an APAR grading does not automatically create a right to retrospective revision of selection marks unless the applicable statutory rules, Railway instructions, or binding norms expressly require such revision.

It also treated disclosure of a third party’s answer sheet under the RTI Act as distinct from the legality of the promotion decision and required proof of legally established prejudice before granting relief.

The Tribunal held that the respondents had complied with the operative direction in OA No. 282/2012 by appointing a fresh evaluator from Headquarters and re-evaluating the answer sheets of both candidates.

The difference between the original and fresh marks—125 to 119 for the applicant—did not, by itself, establish manipulation or mala fides. The applicant relied principally on his own comparison of answers and the marks awarded, but produced no independent expert opinion or objective material showing that the fresh evaluator used an incorrect answer key, ignored the prescribed marking scheme, or acted arbitrarily.

Since judicial review does not permit a roving re-evaluation of every answer, the challenge to the written marks failed.

The applicant’s APAR was upgraded only on 12 March 2012, whereas the original tabulation had been prepared on 27 February 2012. The Tribunal found that the applicant had identified no rule requiring the subsequent upgradation to be retrospectively incorporated into the selection.

An upgraded APAR and entitlement to a particular number of selection marks were treated as distinct matters governed by the applicable selection rules and the relevant stage of assessment.

Finally, the non-supply of Respondent No. 7’s answer sheet, treated by the respondents as third-party information, did not establish that the applicant suffered legally cognisable prejudice or that the promotion was otherwise unlawful.

It further held that the subsequent APAR upgradation did not entitle the applicant to retrospective enhancement of his record-of-service marks in the absence of a specific governing rule.

The promotion of Respondent No. 7 dated 18 November 2016 was therefore upheld, the Original Application was dismissed, and there was no order as to costs.