Selection-related representation must be decided after hearing within 30 days; disputed promotee cannot join meanwhile.

The applicant, a Chief Health and Malaria Inspector in South Central Railway, participated in a selection process for three unreserved vacancies to the Group-B post of Assistant Health Officer.

A panel dated 10 August 2026 included three candidates, including Respondent No. 8, an SC candidate, against an alleged unreserved vacancy.

An extended panel proposed Respondent No. 9, also an SC candidate, in place of a candidate who was due to retire on 31 August 2026.

The applicant contended that four answers in his examination—Questions 14, 15, 16 and 18—had been incorrectly treated as wrong.

According to him, correction of the alleged errors would increase his examination score from 78.7 to 84, resulting in a total score of 124.60 and an “Outstanding” grading.

The applicant submitted a representation dated 7 September 2026 seeking correction and re-evaluation of his marks and consequential revision of the panel.

During the hearing, he limited his request to a direction for time-bound disposal of that representation.

The respondents stated that Respondent No. 9 had not yet been relieved.

Whether the respondents should be directed to reconsider and dispose of the applicant’s pending representation concerning alleged errors in evaluation of his answers and re-assessment of his marks.

Whether, pending such consideration, Respondent No. 9 should be restrained from joining the post in question.

Whether the alleged placement of SC candidates against unreserved vacancies and the applicant’s non-inclusion in the panel were legally sustainable.

the Tribunal did not adjudicate this issue on merits.

The Tribunal did not finally determine the validity of the reservation-related claims, the correctness of the answer key, or the applicant’s entitlement to promotion.

It applied the limited procedural principle that a pending representation raising a potentially material issue in a selection process should be considered by the competent authority after affording the affected employee an opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal also exercised interim protective jurisdiction by directing that the disputed candidate should not join the post until the representation was decided.

No specific statutory provision, Railway Board rule, or judicial precedent was cited or applied in the operative reasoning.

The Tribunal noted that the applicant’s representation specifically alleged that four answers had been wrongly evaluated and that the correction could materially alter his ranking and grading.

Since the representation was pending and the respondents sought time to obtain instructions, the Tribunal considered it appropriate not to decide the merits at the admission stage.

Instead, it directed the competent authority to examine the representation, re-assess the applicant’s marks with reference to the relevant answer key, and provide him an opportunity of hearing.

To preserve the efficacy of that exercise, the Tribunal restrained Respondent No. 9 from joining the post during the decision-making period.

The respondents were directed to dispose of the applicant’s pending representation, after granting him an opportunity of hearing, within 30 days from receipt of a copy of the order.

Until such disposal, Respondent No. 9, Sri Suresh Chand Bairwa, was directed not to join the post in question.

Pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of, with no order as to costs.