[2025:RJ-JP:48025-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13534/2025 Suresh Kumar Yadav S/o Shri Guljhari Lal Yadav, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Village Lalsar, Post Kerpura, Tehsil Khandela, District Sikar (Raj.) Pin 332709 (Recruitment To The Technician Grade-I Signal (Group-C) Through RRB Ajmer) ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Through Secretary, Ministry Of Railway, Govt. Of India, 256A, Raisina Road, Rajpath Area, Central Secretariat, New Delhi- 110 001. 2. Chairman, Railway Recruitment Board, Ajmer. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.D. Meena For Respondent(s) : Mr. Gaurav Jain HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI CHIRANIA Order 26/11/2025 Heard learned counsel for the parties. The present writ petition has been filed against the order dated 21.07.2025 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, whereby the original application filed by the applicant/petitioner has been dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the question No.57 of the question paper for selection to the post of Technician Grade-I Signal (Group-C) has not been correctly adjudicated by the respondents as the correct answer is option 4, however, the respondents have reflected on their website as the correct answer to be option 3. [2025:RJ-JP:48025-DB] (2 of 3) [CW-13534/2025] Learned counsel submits that all the textbooks on the subject clearly reflect that the correct answer to the question No.57 is option 4. Learned counsel submits that although the objections were invited to the questions/options/keys transmitted by the respondents, but the petitioner could not file the objections before 31.12.2024 as he belongs to the rural background and lives in a village, therefore, the respondents may be directed to consider the objections filed by him. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition may be allowed and the respondents may be directed to consider the objection filed by the petitioner after the cut off date. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents vehemently submitted that in the selection process, the respondents have declared the result and objections were invited from the candidates. It was very clearly reflected in their communication dated 25.12.2024 that all the objections can be raised on or before 31.12.2024 at 11 AM after which, no representations/objections from any candidate on the questions/options/keys, etc. will be entertained. He, therefore, submits that since the petitioner failed to submit the objections/representations before the cut off date, therefore, the original application has rightly been dismissed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal. We have considered the submissions made at the Bar and gone through the relevant record of the case. The admitted position in the present case is that in pursuance of the selection process undertaken by the respondents for the post of Technician Grade-I Signal (Group-C), the written [2025:RJ-JP:48025-DB] (3 of 3) [CW-13534/2025] test was held and after the written test, the model answer sheet was prepared and transmitted by the respondents. Vide notification/notice dated 25.12.2024, the candidates were advised to raise their objections, if any, on or before 31.12.2024 on the questions/options/keys, etc. and after the cut off date, no representation/objection was directed to be entertained. In the present case, since the respondents submitted his objection after the cut off date, therefore, the same has not rightly been considered by the respondents. In the considered opinion of this Court, no illegality has been committed by the learned tribunal while rejecting the original application of the petitioner. The writ petition is devoid of any force and the same is hereby dismissed. The stay application as well as other pending miscellaneous application, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (RAVI CHIRANIA),J (VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J 136/-Dushyant