Railway Porter’s Bid To Undo Ticket-Collector Selection Fails As CAT Finds Four-Member Board Properly Constituted

The applicant, a Commercial Porter in East Coast Railway, took part in a selection for promotion to Ticket Collector posts under the 16-2/3% quota and qualified in the written test, but was not selected.

He challenged the Selection Board’s composition, arguing that a Senior Scale officer on the Board was subordinate to a JAG member, contrary to the Railway Board’s guidelines.

He later also alleged that his answer sheet had not been awarded two marks for a correct answer and sought an amendment to claim placement on the selected panel.

Sections 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, and IREM paragraphs 217–219 governed the application and constitution and procedure of Selection Boards.

Under IREM paragraph 218, a Board must have at least three officers, including a Personnel Officer and a member from another department; where it has only three members, none may be directly subordinate to another.

The note to paragraph 218(c) permits JAG officers from other departments to be nominated and, in the stated circumstances, a fourth member who is a Senior Scale officer in independent charge and not subordinate to another Board member.

Applying Ran Vijay Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, as quoted in U.P. Public Service Commission v. Sunil Kumar Singh, courts should not re-evaluate answer sheets; review is limited to clearly demonstrated material error in rare or exceptional cases, and the court should defer to examination authorities and academic expertise.

The Tribunal also relied on State of Uttar Pradesh v. Karunesh Kumar for the principle that an unsuccessful candidate who participated without protest generally cannot later challenge the selection process, subject to recognised exceptions.

The Tribunal found that the Board had four members, including the DCM (Co-ordination), a Senior Scale officer in independent charge, while the JAG members were from the Operating and Stores departments.

It accepted the respondents’ evidence that the DCM’s reporting officer was the DRM and that the DCM was not subordinate to the other Board members; the applicant’s reliance on the seniority list did not establish a breach of the IREM requirement.

As to the alleged missing marks, the Tribunal held that reviewing the answer sheet would require it to enter an area reserved for examination experts.

It also noted that the applicant raised the challenge after failing selection and questioned other candidates’ positions without joining them as necessary parties.

The OA was dismissed; the interim order was vacated, pending miscellaneous applications were closed, and no order as to costs was made.