Facts
The applicant, a Track Maintainer–IV in the Eastern Railway, applied for the post of Junior Engineer (P.Way) under the 20% Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) quota pursuant to a notification dated 19.10.2023
Source reference: p. 3The applicant secured 84.04 marks out of 100 in the written examination, while the private respondent (Shri Bappa Pati) secured 77.38 marks
Source reference: p. 4However, in the final provisional panel dated 27.08.2024, the private respondent was selected while the applicant was excluded
Source reference: p. 4The applicant challenged the selection, contending that the respondents should have applied a weightage of 85% for written marks and 15% for service records as per RBE No. 102/2005
Source reference: p. 6The respondents maintained that as per Paragraph 219(j) of IREM Vol. I and Master Circular No. 31, the selection for such general posts requires a relative weightage of 50 marks for professional ability and 30 marks for record of service
Source reference: p. 9Under this 50:30 formula, the applicant’s aggregate score (68.02) was lower than the empanelled candidates
Source reference: p. 9The applicant also sought an upgrade of his 2022-23 APAR grading from "Very Good" to "Outstanding"
Source reference: p. 5Issues
1. Whether the selection process for the post of JE (P.Way) under the 20% LDCE quota is governed by the 85:15 weightage rule in RBE No. 102/2005 or the 50:30 weightage rule under Paragraph 219(j) of IREM Vol. I
Source reference: p. 112. Whether the applicant, having participated in the selection process without protest, can challenge the evaluation criteria after being declared unsuccessful
Source reference: p. 153. Whether the applicant is entitled to a retrospective upgrade of APAR grading after the prescribed deadline for objections has expired
Source reference: p. 10Law Applied
The court primarily applied Paragraph 219(j) of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual (IREM) Vol. I, which prescribes the selection procedure for general posts outside the normal channel of promotion, allotting 50 marks for professional ability and 30 marks for record of service
Source reference: p. 12This was supplemented by Advance Correction Slip (ACS) No. 209 and ACS No. 183, which substituted the evaluation tables to finalize merit based on the aggregate of these two factors
Source reference: p. 13-14The court also relied on the principles in Master Circular No. 31 regarding the promotion of Non-Gazetted Group ‘C’ staff
Source reference: p. 11The court noted that RBE No. 102/2005 is restricted to specific categories like OS-II and Personnel Inspectors and does not apply to technical posts like JE (P.Way)
Source reference: p. 10Reasoning
The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant's reliance on RBE No. 102/2005 was misplaced as that circular was specific to administrative categories and had been superseded or distinguished by subsequent IREM amendments for general category posts
Source reference: p. 10The Tribunal observed that Paragraph 219(j) of IREM Vol. I, as amended by ACS No. 183 and 209, specifically governs selections where candidates are called from various departments (general posts) and mandates the 50:30 distribution for Professional Ability and Record of Service
Source reference: p. 14The Tribunal emphasized that the respondents had explicitly mentioned the application of Paragraph 219(j) and Master Circular 31 in the examination notification dated 14.05.2024
Source reference: p. 15By appearing in the examination without challenging the notification, the applicant was estopped from questioning the criteria post-facto
Source reference: p. 15Regarding the APAR, the Tribunal found that the applicant failed to raise objections by the 21.11.2023 deadline specified in the notification, rendering the request for upgradation untenable at this stage
Source reference: p. 10Holding
The Tribunal held that the selection process was conducted in strict accordance with the prevailing IREM rules and Master Circulars
It concluded that the applicant failed to secure a position on the merit panel because his aggregate score (after scaling written marks to a base of 50 and adding service record marks) was lower than that of the selected candidates
Source reference: p. 9The Tribunal dismissed the Original Application, finding no irregularity in the respondents' adoption of the 50:30 evaluation formula or the rejection of the belated APAR grievance
Source reference: p. 15No orders as to costs were made
Source reference: p. 15Original Court PDF
Tanmoy DuttavsEASTERN RAILWAY
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in