Dismissed¶41

Union of India v. Bharat Lal Patel

Chhattisgarh HC26 Feb 2025WPS/1274/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Departmental promotion selection, Loco Inspector, Mechanical Department, SECR Bilaspur; notification No. 11/2024 dated 29/05/2014; answer-sheet evaluation discrepancies; revised model answer key; no provision for re-evaluation of answer sheets; CAT allowed O.A. No. 203/1125/2015 and ordered redetermination of panel by expert committee; scope of judicial review over expert evaluation; selected candidates as necessary parties; Article 226 Constitution of India; writ petition dismissed without notice; WPS No. 1274 of 2025; decided 27.02.2025; Rajani Dubey, J. and Sachin Singh Rajput, J.

What did the court decide?

No illegality or irregularity was found in the CAT's order, which merely directed redetermination of the panel based on written marks obtained by the candidates after constituting a small committee of experts. ¶40

Union of India Vs Bharat Lal Patel — Writ and Judicial Review | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

2025:CGHC:9870-DB

¶3

Digitally signed by RAVVA UTTEJ KUMAR RAJU Date: 2025.03.04 NAFR 10:28:30 +0530

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶5

WPS No. 1274 of 2025

¶6

Union of India, Through the Secretary, Railway Board, ministry of Railways, Rail Bhawan, Raisena Road, Rafi marg, New Delhi-110001

¶7

General Manager, South East Central Railway, New GM Building, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) 492004

¶8

Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, GM office Complex, South East Central Railway, Bilaspur, (Chhattisgarh) 495004

¶9

Assistant Personnel Officer, South East Central Railway, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) 495004

¶10

---- Petitioners

¶11

Versus

¶12

Bharat Lal Patel, S/o. Shri Hukumat Singh Patel, Aged About 41 Years, presently working as Loco Pilot/ SECR/BSP, R/o Qtr N. 54/A Chandralok Colony, Near Shani Mandir, Rajkishore Nagar, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh- 495001

¶13

---- Respondent

¶14

For Petitioners : Mr. Palash Tiwari, Advocate

¶15

Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey,J.

¶16

Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput, J.

¶17

Order on Board

¶18

Per Rajani Dubey, J.

¶19

27.02.2025

¶20

¶21

The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the respondent wherein the petitioners have challenged the order dated 25/09/2024, passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) in O.A. No. 203/1125/2015 of 2015 in which the learned CAT has directed to redetermine the panel based on written marks obtained by the candidates in examination after constituting small committee of experts for the same.

¶22

Brief facts of the case, as adumbrated by the petitioners, are that the petitioners have filed the instant petition on the grounds that the Petitioner (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 impaneled for the post of Loco Inspector whereas, marks of other candidates were disclosed on 19/12/2014. A complaint letter/Objection was raised by the respondent regarding evaluation process of 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. That, 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

¶23

¶24

aforementioned letter the respondent challenged the same before learned Central Administrative Tribunal vide Original Application No. 203/1125/2015. That, the learned CAT disregarded the fundamental principle of law that Courts, in the exercise of judicial review, should not substitute their judgment for that of an expert panel entrusted with evaluating answer sheets. Hence, this petition for the following reliefs:

¶25

“a. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the promotion case of petitioner for its kind perusal.

¶26

b. That, this 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. 203/1125/2015 (AnnexureP/1).

¶27

c. That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, as if may deem fit and appropriate.

¶28

d. Cost of the petition may also be given.”

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioners 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. 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 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

¶30

¶31

instant petition deserves to be allowed.

¶32

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the material available on record.

¶33

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 (4 UR 2 SC and 1 ST) 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.

¶34

It is clear from para 3.4 of the impugned order that the respondent alleges that as many as ten answers to the objective type questions were incorrect in the model answer sheet, which the respondent had marked correct as per the Operators Manual issued by the Diesel Training Centre, South Western Railway, Indian Railway (Open Line), General Rules 1976 and the Accident Manual.

¶35

The learned CAT after considering all objections of the applicant/respondent observed in paras 8 & 9 as under:-

¶36

“8. It is settled law that the statute does not permit reevaluation 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

¶37

¶38

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.

¶39

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.”

¶40

It is evident from the the impugned order that upon the objections of the respondent, the learned CAT only directed the petitioners to redetermine 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 allegation levelled by the respondent in their reply, thus so we are not inclined to interfere in this order.

¶41

Accordingly, the petition is dismissed without issuing notice to the respondent.

¶42

Sd/- Sd/-

¶43

(Rajani Dubey) (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Judge

¶44

U. K. Raju

Union of India v. Bharat Lal Patel

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India v. Bharat Lal Patel

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Yamini Rajput Vs Krishna Kumar Rajput

Union of India Vs Abhishek Jain

Juggilal Agrawal Vs Ramawtar Goenka and Anr.

Union of India Vs Iradhar Prasad Sahu

Balram Kodwani Vs Smt. Reema Sahu W/o Shri Naresh Sahu

Vijay Kumar Gandhi Vs Indian Red Cross Society