HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 11436 of 2024 Court No. - 1 HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J. HON'BLE MANJIVE SHUKLA, J. 1. Heard Shri Umesh Kumar Yadav, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri Varun Pandey, learned Counsel for the Union of India. 2. The instant writ petition has been filed challenging therein the judgment and order dated 16.04.2024 passed by learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow in Original Application No.332/00073/2021 (Rajesh Vs. Union of India & Others). 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner appeared in the selection process for appointment on the post of Assistant Loco Pilot (ALP) & Technician and he had replied 89 questions correctly out of the total 93 questions. He has further submitted that initially he filed a representation and since no decision was taken on his representation, he filed an Original Application before the Tribunal which ultimately was disposed of with a direction to decide his representation. Later on his representation was decided and rejected. Against the order of rejection of the aforesaid representation, he again approached to the Central Administrative Tribunal by way of filing Original Application No.332/00073/2021, which had been dismissed. 4. Shri Varun Pandey, learned Counsel appearing for the Union of India submits that in the Original Aapplication a detailed counter affidavit was filed by the Union of India in which it had been categorically Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Umesh Kumar Yadav, Ajit Singh Yadav Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.S.G.I. Rajesh .....Petitioner(s) Union Of India Thru. Its General Manager North Central Railway And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) demonstrated that the petitioner had answered only 28 questions correctly and his answers to 65 questions have been found wrong therefore, he was not selected. 5. We have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsels for the parties and we find that the Union of India had filed a counter affidavit in the Original Application No.332/00073/2021 before the Tribunal wherein, in paragraph No.4.1 it has been categorically stated that the petitioner had replied only 28 questions correctly and his answers to the 65 questions have been found to be wrong. Learned Counsel for the petitioner could not substantiate before this Court, as to how petitioner's answers to 89 questions are correct. It is also noteworthy that there is no such provision under which, re-evaluation of the O.M.R. sheet can be ordered. 6. In view of the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment and order dated 16.04.2024 passed by learned Central Administrative Tribunal, accordingly, this writ petition is hereby dismissed. August 28, 2025 -Piyush- WRIA No. 11436 of 2024 2 (Manjive Shukla,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) Digitally signed by :- PIYUSH YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench