1 2025:CGHC:23275-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1258 of 2025 1 - Union of India, through the 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 (Chhattisgarh) 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. ... petitionerss Versus Sanat Sao S/o Shri Jagat Ram Sao, aged about 43 years, presently working as Loco Pilot/SECR/BSP, R/o - Indra Colony, Tarbahar, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh - 495001. ... Respondent For petitionerss : Mr. Anmol Singh, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Palash Tiwari, Advocate. Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey, J. Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J. Order on Board Per Rajani Dubey, J. 12.06.2025 Digitally signed by RAVVA UTTEJ KUMAR RAJU 2 1. The petitionerss have preferred the present writ petition praying for the following reliefs:- “10.1 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the promotion case of petitioners for its kind perusal. 10.2 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to Quash/Set-aside the Judgment passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal on 25.09.2024 in O.A. No. 203/806//2015 (Annexure P/1) 10.3 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, as if may deem fit and appropriate. 10.4 Cost of the petition may also be given.” 2. Brief facts of the case, as adumbrated by the petitionerss, are that the applicant/respondent was working as Loco Pilot, SECR/Bsp at the relevant point of time. The petitionerss issued a notification No. 11/2014 on 29.05.2014 in connection with the selection for promotion to the post of Loco Inspector for 07 posts in scale PB-2, GP-4600 (Rs. 9300-34800) of Mechanical Department through Departmental Promotion process. The petitionerss conducted the written examination on 28.08.2014, 01.09.2014 and 03.09.2014 and the results of the candidates were issued on 14.10.2014. The respondent also appeared in the written examination held on 01.09.2014 and the result of the written examination was declared and the respondent came to know that he has obtained lesser marks than his expectation. Thereafter, the respondent made representation on 27.03.2015 praying for revaluation of his answer sheet on the basis of the correct and reframed model answers. However, vide the impugned communcation dated 06.05.2015 he has been infomed that there is no provision for revaluation. Thereafter, the petitionerss have filed their reply, wherein 3 they submitted that 56 candidates have appeared in the written examination and out of them only 18 candidates qualified the writtten examination and after overall assessment 04 candidates were empanelled for promotion to the post of Loco Inspector. Then, the answer sheet of the respondent was revaluated once and after recasting the marks in the answer book, three marks have been awarded to the respondent and his earlier marks increased to 57.5 from 54.5. Being aggrieved by the response by the petitionerss dated 06.05.2015, the respondent challenged the same before learned Central Administrative Tribunal vide original application No. OA No. 203/806/2015. Learned Central Administrative Tribunal after considering the facts and circumstances of the case passed the impugned order dated 25.09.2014 without appreciating the defence of the petitionerss that the evaluation of the marksheet is beyond the scope of judicial review as the Court cannot sit over the expert panel in any technical question. Further, the learned CAT also failed to hold that the respondent approached this Court only after he failed to be selected in the examination on merits. Hence, this petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitionerss submits that the learned CAT allowed the application of the respondent without any sufficient ground. The learned CAT has failed to identify or specify as to what error has been committed by the petitionerss in evaluating the answer sheets and the learned CAT has also failed to consider the issue of non joinder of necessary parties i.e. the candidates who were selected in the examination. The selected candidates are essential parties to the original application as they would be directly affected in the event of respondent’s success, as such the impugned order passed by the 4 learned CAT is illegal and contrary to law. He further submits that the scope of judicial review very is limited by the Courts in adjudicating technical questions. Apart from it, the candidate/respondent who has failed to even qualify in an examination should be precluded from challenging the validity or veracity of the examination process when the entire selection process was conducted by the Railway Board itself very fairly. Therefore, the instant petition deserves to be allowed. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitionerss and perused the material available on record. 5. It is clear from the impugned order (Annexure-P/1) that the respondent filed application against his evaluation in the written examination for promotion through selection to the post of Loco Inspector for 07 posts and the learned CAT allowed the application of the respondent and directed the petitionerss to redetermine the panel based on written marks obtained by the candidates in the examination after constituting a small committee of experts for the sam. 6. The learned CAT after considering all objections of the applicant/respondent observed in paras 8 & 9 as under:- “8. It is settled law that the statute does not permit re- evaluation or scrutiny of an answer sheet and the Court should not at all re-evaluate or scrutinize the answer sheets of a candidate except in the cases where material error has been committed. However, in the present case, we find that there are clearly certain indiscrepancies in awarding marks to the applicants. The applicants had raised specific queries and made allegations regarding award of marks to them. Thus, it was incumbent on the authorities to verify the claim of the applicants and revisit the whole issue with a view to neutralizing the effect of such erroneous evaluation leading to non empanelment of a deserving candidate in the final select list. It is also not the case where the principle of estoppels arises, as from the record itself, it is abundantly clear that there were certain irregularities in awarding marks to the applicants. The applicants have filed the Operators 5 Manual along with their original application, as per which, they state that their answers to the concerning questions were incorrect. This fact has not been refuted by the respondents in their reply. Thus, we are bound to believe with the reasoning detailed by the applicants that their answer sheets have not been evaluated properly. 9.In the result, all three Original Applications are allowed and the impugned order dated 06.05.2013 (Annexure A-01) is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to re-determine the panel based on written marks obtained by the candidates in examination after constituting a small committee of experts for the same This exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order No order as to costs.” 7. It is evident from the the impugned order that upon the objections of the respondent, the learned CAT only directed the petitionerss 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, as such we do not find any illegality or irregularity in this order. Inasmuch as It is also evident from the impugned order that the petitionerss have not denied the allegation levelled by the respondent in their reply and in similar matter in WPS No. 1260 of 2025 on the same ground this Court dismissed the same petition vide order dated 27.02.2025. Thus, so we are not inclined to interfere in this order. 8. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed without issuing notice to the respondent. Sd/- Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Judge U.K. Raju