Kolkata CAT Orders Supplementary Instructor Test For 7 Loco Inspectors Not Released By Railway, Bars Results Until Their Papers Are Evaluated

In brief

The question

1. Whether the applicants’ failure to attend the selection test, allegedly because their controlling authority did not spare them, justified permitting them to sit a supplementary examination.

The court held

The Tribunal held that the applicants should be permitted to appear in a supplementary absentee examination and directed the respondents not to publish the result arising from the notification until the examination was completed and their papers evaluated.

It also directed

The O.A. was disposed of at the admission stage, with no order as to costs.

01Facts

The applicants, railway employees whose names appeared on the eligible-candidates list for an Instructor selection test, had been issued admit cards for the examination scheduled on 24 September 2026.

¶ 4–5

They alleged that their controlling authority did not spare them to attend the test, despite their having raised the issue by email the preceding day.

¶ 4–5

They sought permission to sit a supplementary examination as absentee candidates and requested that the selection result not be published until then.

¶ 4–5

The Tribunal allowed their application to prosecute jointly under Rule 4(5)(a) of the CAT Procedure Rules, 1987.

¶ 3

The respondents argued that the applicants could have attended using their admit cards and had waived their rights by not doing so.

¶ 6

02Issues

i.1. Whether the applicants’ failure to attend the selection test, allegedly because their controlling authority did not spare them, justified permitting them to sit a supplementary examination.

¶ 5–10

ii.2. Whether publication of the selection result should be withheld until the applicants’ supplementary examination papers were completed and evaluated.

¶ 11

03Law Applied

The Tribunal exercised jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, under which the applicants had invoked its jurisdiction.

¶ 1

It also applied Rule 4(5)(a) of the CAT Procedure Rules, 1987 to permit the applicants to prosecute the matter jointly.

¶ 3

The order cites no precedent or specific substantive recruitment rule; its reasoning rests on the view that employees in operational posts could not reasonably be expected to attend an examination without being spared by their controlling authority.

¶ 10

Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 Section 19

04Reasoning

The applicants’ names were on the eligible list and they had been issued admit cards, but the Tribunal accepted that they could not attend because they had not been spared by their controlling authority.

¶ 9–10

It rejected the respondents’ waiver argument, reasoning that the applicants’ operational duties prevented them from attending merely on the strength of their admit cards and without official release.

¶ 10

To address the resulting disadvantage, the Tribunal directed that they be allowed to take a supplementary absentee examination and that the result not be published until their papers had been completed and evaluated.

¶ 11