Re-evaluation of answer sheets is impermissible in the absence of specific statutory rules.

The applicants were existing railway employees who applied for the post of Junior Engineer (Level-6) under the 25% Intermediate Apprentice Quota following a notification dated 24.02.2021

After a written examination, a final select panel was published on 06.09.2023, where the applicants were placed at Sl. Nos. 6 and 7 under the Unreserved (UR) category

Consequently, they were spared and reported for training in November 2023

Meanwhile, an unsuccessful candidate (Krushna Chandra Sahu) filed O.A. 647/2023, wherein the Tribunal directed the respondents to dispose of his representation regarding a vacancy caused by another candidate's non-joining

Using this order as a pretext, the respondents re-evaluated the OMR sheets of all candidates, published a revised panel on 22.04.2024 that excluded the applicants, and ordered their repatriation from training

Whether, in the absence of specific rules, the re-evaluation of OMR sheets is legally permissible?

Whether the Railway Board circulars of 1968 and 2018 authorize the re-evaluation of answer sheets after the publication of a final select panel?

Whether the Tribunal’s interim order in O.A. 647/2023 constituted a direction to re-evaluate the OMR sheets?

Whether the revision of the panel and repatriation of the applicants without prior notice violated the principles of natural justice?

re-evaluation of answer sheets is impermissible in the absence of a specific statutory provision or rule, as established in Pramod Kumar Srivastava v. Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission

H.P. Public Service Commission v. Mukesh Thakur

doctrine of audi alteram partem, necessitating a reasonable opportunity of being heard before taking action that results in adverse civil consequences

Railway Board Letter No. E(NG)168 PM1-60 (1968) and No. E(NG)1/2018/PM 1/62 (2018) as procedural guidelines for correcting irregularities prior to panel publication, rather than substantive rules for post-facto re-evaluation

The Tribunal found that the respondents had no legal authority to conduct a re-evaluation of OMR sheets after the final panel was published and acted upon

The court noted that the respondents had previously admitted in other litigations (e.g., O.A. 147/2019) that no Railway rules exist for the re-evaluation of evaluated answer sheets

The Tribunal clarified that its order in O.A. 647/2023 only directed the disposal of a specific representation regarding vacancy filling and did not mandate a general re-evaluation; thus, the respondents' claim that the revision was "as per court direction" was a misinterpretation used to serve "selfish interests"

because the applicants had already commenced training, the summary removal from the panel without notice constituted a gross violation of natural justice, as it visited "adverse civil consequences" upon them

The Tribunal quashed the revised panel dated 22.04.2024 and restored the original panel dated 06.09.2023

The respondents were directed to issue compliance orders and take follow-up actions (restoring the applicants' status and training) within 30 days of receipt of the order