1 WPS No. 4040 of 2025 2025:CGHC:46179-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4040 of 2025 Sevant Lal Kashyap S/o Dhal Singh Kashyap Aged About 48 Years Now R/o Quarter No. G/21, Rishabh Nagar, South City Potiya Kal Chowk, Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - Union Of India Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Railways, Rail Bhawan, Rafi Marg, New Delhi. 2 - Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, South - East Central Railways, Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Santosh Kumar Patkar S/o Sidhan Ram Patkar Working As Loco Inspector, Combined Crew Lobby, South East Central Railway, Dalli-Rajhara, District Balod, Chhattisgarh. Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S.S. Marhas, Advocate For UOI/Respondent No. 1 & 2 : Mr. R.K. Mishra, DSGI Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice RAHUL JHA Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2025.09.17 15:30:30 +0530 2 WPS No. 4040 of 2025 10/09/2025 1. This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred against the order dated 08.04.2025 (Annexure-P/1) passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) in Original Application No. 200/48 of 2016, whereby the Original Application filed by the petitioner came to be dismissed. The petitioner in the instant Writ Petition prays for the following reliefs: “10.1 Call for the entire records of the case from the possession of Learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, Jabalpur pertaining to the case of the Petitioner in Original Application No. 200/48 of 2016. 10.2. Issue writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) in the appropriate nature setting aside the order dated 08.04.2025 passed in Original Application No. 200/48 of 2016 by Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, Jabalpur. 10.3 Issue writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) in the appropriate nature directing the respondents to re-evaluate the answer sheet of the Petitioner in relation to written test for the promotional post of Loco Inspector and to grant at least 4 additional marks in the written exam and re-publish the merit list for the promotional post of Loco Inspector particularly placing the Petitioner over and above the Respondent No. 3 and grant all consequential benefits to the Petitioner. 3 WPS No. 4040 of 2025 10.4. Any other relief that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be granted in favour of the petitioner.” 2. Facts, as projected in the Writ Petition are that the petitioner is working as Loco Pilot (Goods) and at the relevant time was posted in the South- East Central Railway. On 30/07/2013, an advertisement was issued for promotion to the post of Loco Inspector. According to the petitioner, in the written test out of 100, the candidate is required to secure 50% marks and 30 marks has to be considered as records of service, as such total 80 marks is overall marks for assessing merit of the candidates. In the said examination, for ACRs the petitioner obtained 30 marks whereas respondent No.3 secured 26 marks, however, after adding marks of written test & ACR both the candidates obtained equal marks i.e. 65. According to the petitioner he was wrongly awarded zero marks in certain questions and particularly Question Nos. 13 and 14 were checked incorrectly, due to which he lost four marks. Subsequently, the petitioner submitted a representation seeking reevaluation of his answer sheet, but the same was rejected by order dated 07.04.2014 on the ground that no provision for reevaluation exists. His request for model answer sheets under the RTI Act was also denied, on the pretext that no such model answers were available in the department. Aggrieved by the rejection, the petitioner then preferred an Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, which came to be dismissed and ultimately, he preferred the instant Writ Petition challenging the order passed by the Tribunal. 4 WPS No. 4040 of 2025 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if the evaluation had been carried out correctly, the petitioner would have secured more marks in the written test than respondent No. 3. It is urged that upon obtaining a copy of the private respondent’s answer sheet, it became clear that marks were granted even for incorrect answers and overwriting, which is arbitrary, discriminatory, and contrary to the rules governing the examination. It is further submitted that the petitioner’s answers to Question Nos. 13, 14, 16 and 19 were fully in line with the study material and the model answer sheets later produced by the respondents, yet no marks were awarded to him. The denial of model answers under RTI, followed by their subsequent production in reply, clearly reflects lack of fairness and transparency in the process. Hence, the petitioner seeks due correction and award of appropriate marks to place him in his rightful position in the merit list. 4. Conversely, learned counsel for the respondent/UOI submits that the petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. It is urged that the petitioner, having participated in the selection process with full knowledge of the governing rules, cannot be permitted to turn around and assail the same after failing to secure selection. The petitioner approached the Tribunal more than a year after the declaration of results, by which time the entire process had concluded and necessary orders had already been made. Law is well settled that a candidate, who takes part in a selection without objection, is estopped from subsequently questioning the procedure or evaluation once the outcome is not in his 5 WPS No. 4040 of 2025 favour. Entertaining such belated claims would unsettle a selection that has long attained finality and cause serious administrative prejudice. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly declined to interfere and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Upon consideration of the submissions as also the order impugned passed by the Tribunal, it is evident that the petitioner’s claim lacks merit. The contention regarding placement of respondent No. 3 herein has already been examined by the Tribunal in another case bearing OA No. 75 of 2015, and by the impugned order it has been held that there is no new material to warrant reconsideration. The petitioner’s claim for four additional marks in the written test for questions 13, 14, 16, and 19 is without substance, as his answers were incorrect and the respondents have correctly provided the answers. His request for reevaluation of the answer sheet was rightly rejected by the Tribunal holding that there was no provision for such reevaluation in the department. Further, the OA was filed nearly a year after the promotion order, by which time the selection process had concluded and promotions were made. Entertaining such delayed claims would disturb a selection that has long been finalized and create unnecessary administrative difficulties. In view of the foregoing, the OA is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 7. Delay has always been considered vital in service matters especially with regard to promotion. As far back as (1975) 1 SCC 152, P.S. 6 WPS No. 4040 of 2025 Sadasivaswamy v. State of Tamil Nadu, it was held that it would be a sound and wise exercise of discretion under Article 226 that the Court should not entertain claims regarding seniority after an approximate period of 6 months from the date of cause of action to prevent clogging the dockets of the Court and which would impede the work of the Court in considering legitimate grievances timely. 8. In view of aforesaid legal preposition as has been dealt with by the Supreme Court and also by this Court, the explanation given by the petitioner in the column of delay, cannot be considered to be a sufficient cause. Further, the Court is repeatedly saying that delay defeats equity and in a matter of promotion, it is clear that entertaining a petition would amount to unsettle the settled position. 9. Admittedly, the petitioner did not approach the Court in time and the promotion made in favour of respondent No3 in the year 2015, cannot be questioned in the year 2016, therefore, the petition apparently suffers from delay and laches. 10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we find no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. /- Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Rahul/Gowri