LDCE selection may be based on combined written-test and service-record marks, not written marks alone.

The applicants, railway employees recruited on compassionate grounds, took part in a 35% LDCE selection for Staff and Welfare Inspector. The selection notice stated that the examination would be written and the panel formed in order of merit.

Although Applicant No. 1 scored 81 and Applicant No. 2 scored 89 in the written examination, neither was empanelled. The Railway authorities explained that selection was based on combined marks for Professional Ability and Record of Service, with the written examination contributing 50 marks and the service record 30 marks.

The applicants challenged the panel, including the use of APARs or working reports, and sought appointment from 26 August 2021.

Whether the applicants were entitled to selection based on their written-examination marks, in light of the notice stating that the panel would be formed in order of merit.

Whether the Railway authorities could consider Record of Service, including APARs or working reports, when determining merit for the LDCE selection.

Whether the selection panel warranted interference for alleged arbitrariness or favouritism.

The Tribunal relied on the Railway selection framework, including the Indian Railway Establishment Manual (IREM), 1989, particularly the provisions concerning selection and assessment of service records (paras. 211, 215 and 219, as cited in the parties’ submissions), Railway Board instructions including RBE No. 113/2009, and the relevant Master Circular.

Under that framework, merit for the selection was assessed on Professional Ability and Record of Service, rather than written-test marks alone; the written examination formed part of the overall assessment.

The judgment also records the respondents’ reliance on Union of India v. A.K. Narula, (2007) 11 SCC 10, for the principle that a selection assessment is not ordinarily interfered with where the prescribed standards are applied fairly and without arbitrariness.

The Tribunal compared the applicants’ aggregate marks with those of the empanelled candidates in the relevant communities.

Applicant No. 1, an SC candidate, had 64.5 marks overall, compared with 66.665 and 74 for the empanelled SC candidates; Applicant No. 2, a UR candidate, had 68.5 marks, compared with 68.665 and 74 for the empanelled UR candidates.

The Tribunal accepted that the selection assessed both Professional Ability and Record of Service and concluded that the applicants’ higher written-test scores did not establish entitlement to appointment. It found no plausible ground to disturb the panel.

It dismissed the OA as misconceived, made no order as to costs, disposed of any pending miscellaneous applications, and vacated any interim order.