Oral interview scores cannot be challenged if within selection committee's subjective assessment.

The applicant, Santosh Kumar Sinha, a Trackman-III under SSE/Pway/W/RJT and a Graduate (B.A. passed), applied for the post of Public Relations Inspector (PRI) in the scale of Rs. 5200-20200 + GP 2800 (Level 5) for three vacancies.

The respondents issued a notification for selection on June 20, 2022, and extended the application deadline to January 16, 2023.

An eligibility list for the written test, scheduled for February 25, 2023, was issued on February 6, 2023, where the applicant appeared at Serial No. 271.

On February 24, 2023, a list of qualified candidates for professional ability was declared, with the applicant appearing at Serial No. 174.

The Viva-Voce was fixed for September 15, 2023.

After the selection process, the respondents declared the panel for PRI on October 23, 2023.

Subsequently, on December 5, 2023, the list of marks secured by candidates was published.

The applicant, aggrieved by the publication of marks, filed a representation on April 25, 2024, contending that he should have received 100 marks in the written examination and requested a copy of his marks.

Through an RTI request, the applicant discovered that Question No. 23 had wrong options, causing him to lose one mark despite answering correctly.

He argued that the faulty question paper and incorrect marking affected his overall selection and noted that his three years' APARs were rated ‘Very Good’ or ‘Outstanding’.

The respondents contended that the applicant lost one mark on Question No. 23 and that representations regarding answer keys were due within 7 days of the examination.

The applicant's representation was beyond this limit.

They further stated that the examination was conducted as per extant rules, a selection committee was formed, and the applicant's APARs for 2019-2020, 2020-2021, and 2021-2022 were properly assessed.

The notification outlined selection based on written test, viva voce, and service records.

The applicant secured 99 out of 100 marks in the written test but was not selected due to a lower assessment in the Viva-Voce (9 out of 15 marks), which had more weightage than the written test.

Whether the applicant was wrongfully denied selection for the post of Public Relations Inspector due to a faulty question in the written examination and an allegedly improper assessment in the Viva-Voce and service records?

Whether the selection process, particularly the weightage given to the written test and Viva-Voce, was transparent and fair, as per the relevant rules and notifications?

The court considered Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, which allows aggrieved individuals to seek relief.

It implicitly referenced principles of fair selection processes and transparency in public employment, particularly where criteria are notified.

The court noted the General Manager (E) order No. E/PUB/1025/2/13(PRI) Vol. VI dated October 23, 2023, regarding the non-selection of the applicant.

It also acknowledged RBE No. 13/2009 para 3, concerning panel preparation based on merit in "Professional ability" and "Record of Service," stipulating a minimum of 60% in professional ability and 60% in aggregate for panel inclusion, and stating that there would be no scope for placing "Outstanding" candidates at the top of the panel based on 80% or more marks.

The court noted that the applicant had indeed secured 99 out of 100 marks in the written test, which was the highest among other employees.

However, it acknowledged the respondents' contention that a representation regarding the faulty Question No. 23 was made beyond the stipulated 7-day period.

The court also observed that the selection process was based on a combination of written test, viva voce, and service records, as stated in the notification.

Crucially, despite the applicant's excellent service records and high written test score, his lower assessment in the Viva-Voce (9 out of 15 marks) pulled him down in the merit position, preventing his selection.

The court recognized the subjective nature of the Viva-Voce assessment by the Selection Committee and stated that this process could not be re-evaluated by the Tribunal at this stage.

While the applicant questioned the 35% weightage restriction and alleged a lack of transparency, the court did not find an explicit violation of communicated selection criteria or established rules.

The respondents maintained that APARs were properly assessed and the selection committee functioned as per instructions.

The court held that while the applicant secured a high score in the written examination and had excellent service records, his non-selection was due to a lower score in the Viva-Voce, which was a part of the selection process.

The court concluded that the subjective assessment of the Selection Committee could not be entertained at that stage.

No order as to costs was made.