Judicial Review of Answer Sheet Evaluation is Limited to Mala Fides and Statutory Violations

The applicant, Radhey Shyam, initially appointed as a Diesel Khalasi in 1989 and later promoted to Technician Grade-I, appeared for a written examination on July 6, 2014, for the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical) Grade-II under a 25% inter-apprentice quota

When his name did not appear in the final panel/result declared on August 12, 2014, he obtained his answer sheets via the RTI Act and discovered he scored 49.5%

The applicant alleged that the examiner deliberately reduced his marks through overwriting and incorrectly marked correct answers as wrong

Following a prior direction from the Tribunal in O.A. No. 655/2015, the respondents issued a speaking order on July 20, 2015, rejecting his claims of unfair evaluation

The applicant challenged this order and the original panel

During the pendency of the case, the applicant superannuated from service

1. Whether the marks awarded by the evaluator were arbitrary and inconsistent with the model answer sheets, warranting judicial interference and re-evaluation

2. Whether the overwriting and reduction of marks in the answer sheet violated Railway Board Circulars dated 20.10.1999 and 12.03.2014

3. Whether the reliefs claimed are sustainable after the applicant’s superannuation and the conclusion of the selection process

The Tribunal applied the principle that the scope of judicial review in matters of academic evaluation is extremely limited, and Courts/Tribunals should not sit as appellate authorities over examiners' decisions absent established mala fides or patent illegality

The court referenced Railway Board Circulars E(NG) I-2005/PM1/16 dated 12.03.2014 (and 20.10.1999), which regulate the modification of marks and prohibit overwriting or erasing

It further relied on the legal principle that promotion takes effect from the date it is granted, and an employee who has superannuated cannot typically seek retrospective inclusion in a select panel for a post they never occupied

The Tribunal examined the specific responses challenged by the applicant (e.g., "EOG", "EIG", "UPS", "Silica Gel color") and found that the respondents provided cogent reasons for treating the applicant’s answers as incorrect based on the model answer sheet, which the applicant failed to challenge

Regarding Question No. 8, where marks were reduced from 7 to 5, the Tribunal noted that while the Inspector/Examiner did cut the marks, it was countersigned/explained as a correction to reflect the true merit of the answer

While acknowledging that such alterations might technically violate technical instructions against "cutting," the Tribunal held this minor discrepancy did not vitiate the entire selection process without proof of mala fides

Crucially, the Tribunal observed that the applicant failed to implead the examiner against whom personal allegations of bias were made, rendering those claims legally unsustainable

Finally, the Tribunal reasoned that since the applicant had retired and the panel was already closed and acted upon, granting relief was neither practical nor legally permissible

The Tribunal held that there was no illegality or infirmity in the impugned orders and dismissed the Original Application with all pending applications disposed of with no order as to costs