Railway Recruitment Cell Must Decide Representation by a Reasoned Order Applying Existing Tribunal Directions

The applicants, both OBC candidates in a Group-D recruitment process initiated by Eastern Railway Employment Notice No. 0112 dated 16 August 2012, sought re-evaluation of their OMR sheets and related relief.

They relied on the Tribunal’s order dated 10 June 2025 in O.A. No. 1071/2023, Tanmoy Biswas & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., which directed publication of an Expert Committee report and re-evaluation of the applicants’ answers in that case.

The present applicants had submitted a representation to the Chairman, Railway Recruitment Cell, Eastern Railway, on 20 August 2025, which remained pending.

At the hearing, they limited their request to consideration of that representation in light of the 10 June 2025 order. The respondents did not object to consideration in accordance with law. The Tribunal also allowed the applicants to pursue the matter jointly under Rule 4(5)(a) of the CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987.

1. Whether the Chairman, Railway Recruitment Cell, Eastern Railway should be directed to consider the applicants’ pending representation in light of the Tribunal’s order dated 10 June 2025 in O.A. No. 1071/2023.

2. Whether that consideration should be completed within a specified period and communicated through a reasoned and speaking order.

Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 provides the basis for the applicants’ original application before the Tribunal.

Rule 4(5)(a) of the CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987 permits joint prosecution, which the Tribunal allowed in this case.

The Tribunal also relied on its order dated 10 June 2025 in Tanmoy Biswas, which had directed publication of the Expert Committee report and re-evaluation of the applicants’ answers in that case, with consequential benefits if they were otherwise eligible.

The present order records that the earlier order remained in force and had not been stayed by the High Court.

The Tribunal did not determine whether the applicants were entitled to re-evaluation, appointment, or other recruitment benefits.

Given that their representation remained pending, that they sought only its consideration in light of the 10 June 2025 order, and that the respondents raised no objection, the Tribunal confined relief to directing the competent authority to decide the representation.

It required the authority to provide reasons and take any follow-up action warranted by its decision.

The authority must communicate its decision by a reasoned and speaking order, with any follow-up action, within four months of receiving the order.

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