1 2025:CGHC:43940-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1284 of 2025 1 - Union Of India Through Secretary Railway Board, Ministry Of Railways Rail Bhawan, Raisena Road, Rafi Marg, New Delhi – 110001. 2 - General Manager, South East Central Railway, New Gm Building, Bilaspur (C.G.) 495001. 3 - Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, Gm Office Complex, South East Central Railway, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. - 495004. 4 - Assistant Personnel Officer, South East Central Railway, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh - 495004. ... Petitioners versus 1 - Shashi Kant Sharma S/o Girijesh Sharma Aged About 41 Years Presently Working As Loco Pilot/secr/bsp, R/o - Hig - 60, Jaggannath Puram, Rajkishore Nagar, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 495006. ... Respondent For Petitioners : Mr. Palash Tiwari, Advocate. (Division Bench) Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal SOURABH PATEL Digitally signed by SOURABH PATEL Date: 2025.09.02 14:06:17 +0530 2 Order on Board (29.08.2025) Sanjay K. Agrawal, J. 1. Petitioners have preferred this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India questioning the legality, validity and correctness of the order dated 25.09.2024, passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) in O.A. No. 203/807/2015 (Shashi Kant Sharma Vs. Union of India & Ors.) by which the original applications filed by the respondent has been allowed and the Union of India has been directed to re-determine the panel based on written marks obtained by the candidates in examination after constituting small committee of experts for the same. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the Petitioner No.2 (SECR) had issued a notification No. 11/2024 on 29/05/2014 vide ANNEXURE-P/2 in connection with the selection for promotion of Loco Inspector in scale PB-2, GP- 4600(Rs.9300-34800) of Mechanical Department through departmental promotion process. The petitioners have conducted the written examination and then results were declared on 14/10/2024 vide ANNEXURE-P/3. Thereafter, only 4 candidates have been empaneled for the post of Loco Inspector whereas, marks of other candidates were disclosed on 19/12/2014. A complaint letter/Objection was filed by the respondent regarding evaluation process of 3 the answer sheet alleging discrepancies in different questions vide ANNEXURE-P/5. Consequently, a revised model answer key was prepared and the marks of the candidates were re-casted accordingly. Despite this adjustment, the respondent could not meet the qualifying marks as per the applicable rules and guidelines. In response to letter dated 23/03/2015, the petitioners stated that there is no provision available in context to re- evaluation of answer sheets vide ANNEXURE-P/6. Being aggrieved by the aforementioned order, the respondent challenged the same before the learned Central Administrative Tribunal vide Original Application No. 203/1125/2015 questioning that order the instant writ petition has been filed. 3. Mr. Palash Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has fairly brought to the notice of this Court that two writ petitions in WPS No. 1274/2025 (Union of India & Ors. Vs. Bharat Lal Patel) and WPS No. 1258/2025 (Union of India & Ors. Vs. Sanat Sao) have been dismissed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court and, therefore, an appropriate order be passed in this writ petition. 4. We have heard learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and perused the entire material available on record with utmost circumspection. 4 5. The three original applications were decided by the CAT by a common order dated 25.09.2024, passed in favour of the respondent. Thereafter, the same was challenged by the petitioners through two writ petitions, preferred in WPS No. 1274/2025 (Union of India & Ors. Vs. Bharat Lal Patel) and WPS No. 1258/2025 (Union of India & Ors. Vs. Sanat Sao) before this Court, but the same were dismissed by this Court vide its orders dated 27.02.2025 and 12.06.2025 respectively, which state as under:- 8. It is evident from the impugned order that upon the objections of the respondent, the learned CAT only directed the petitioners to re-determine the panel based on the written marks obtained by the candidates in the examination after constituting a small committee of experts. As such, we do not find any illegality or irregularity in this order. Furthermore, it is also evident from the impugned order that the petitioners have not denied the allegations leveled by the respondent in their reply. Thus, we are not inclined to interfere with this order. 6. In that view of the matter, since the identical writ petitions have already been dismissed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court and the CAT had only directed the petitioners to re-determine the panel based on written marks obtained by the candidates in the examination after constituting a small committee of the experts of the same, we are not inclined to interfere with the order impugned. 7. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed at the motion stage 5 itself. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Judge Sourabh P.