1 2025:CGHC:10075-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No.1276 of 2025 1 - Union Of India Through Its Secretary, Ministry Of Railways, Rail Bhawan, Rafi Marg, New Delhi – 110001 2 - Divisional Railway Manager South East Central Railway, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 495001 3 - Divisional Personnel Officer South East Central Railway, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh - 495001 Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Sunder Lal Sahu S/o Jai Narayan Sahu Aged About 41 Years Working as Key Man SSE (P.Way) Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, R/o C/o Sundarlal Sahu, Behind Manohar Vyam Shala, Naya Para, Sirgitti, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh - 495001 Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anmol Singh, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Palash Tiwari, Advocate Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order on Board Per Rajani Dubey J. 28/02/2025 1. The petitioners have preferred the present writ petition praying for Digitally signed by RAMAKANT NIRALA 2 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 petitioner 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 03.10.2024 in O.A No.203/375/2013. 10.3 That, 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 my also be given.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant/respondent was working as Trackman, SSE (P. Way) at the relevant point of time. The respondents conducted written examination for promotion through selection to the post of Senior PWS for 17 posts of Engineering Department. In the said examination, objective as well as descriptive questions were asked and the tabulation sheet was prepared on the basis of model answer sheets. The respondent also appeared in the written examination held on 23.07.2012. The result of written examination was declared and the respondent came to know that he has obtained lesser marks than his expectation. Therefore, he made an application under RTI to supply him answer sheets and also prayed to supply model answer sheets. The respondent obtained the answer sheet under the RTI in which he came to know that he was awarded zero marks for question No 6, 7 and 20, whereas, as per the study material, the answers to these questions have been correctly answered by the applicant/respondent. Similarly, 3 answers to question No.24 and 25 were correct as per the model answer sheet but despite his correct answer, the applicant was awarded zero marks for those questions. Similarly for descriptive questions Nos. 1, 2, 5 & 7, the applicant was awarded lesser marks while he was entitled for full marks to these questions as per the study material. The respondent secured 62 marks out of 100 and was declared pass however his name was kept in the waiting list, thereafter the respondent applied for revaluation, but the same went in vain, against which he filed original application before the learned CAT, which has been allowed and the petitioners have been directed to re-determine the panel based on written marks obtained by the candidates in the examination after constituting a small committee of experts for the same, against which the present writ petition has been filed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner 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 petitioners 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 learned CAT is illegal and contrary to law. He further submits that the scope of judicial 4 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 petitioner 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 Senior PWS for 17 posts of Engineering Department and the learned CAT allowed the application of the respondent and directed the petitioners to redetermine the panel based on written marks obtained by the candidates in the examination after constituting a small committee of experts for the same. 6. It is clear from the impugned order that in para 3.4 of the same, the respondent objected that answers to question Nos.6, 7, 20, 24 & 25 were correct as per model answer sheet but despite his correct answers, the respondent was awarded 0 marks for those questions. 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- 5 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 are sufficient materials placed before us to suggest the irregularities in awarding marks to the applicants. The applicants have filed the copy of the relevant partition of the study material of the approved books (Annexure A-4), 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, both this Original Applications are allowed. 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 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, 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 petitioners have not denied the 6 allegation levelled by the respondent in their reply, 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 Sachin Singh Rajput Judge Judge Nirala