Bikash Kumar Mahto and Ors. Vs Dedicated Freight Corridor Corporation of India Ltd.

The Petitioners are working as Junior Project Managers [“ JPM ”] in Grade E-2 with Dedicated Freight Corridor Corporation of India Limited [“ DFCCIL ”], a Government of India enterprise under the Ministry of Railways.

¶12

The Petitioners assert that they are experienced officers who have consistently maintained good service records and APAR gradings, and are fully eligible for consideration for promotion to Grade E-3.

¶13

As per Rule 8.7.1(a)(ii) of the applicable promotion rules dated 21^st October, 2020, intra-cluster promotion is to be carried out on the basis of interview, wherein 50% of the marks are allocated on the basis of APARs and 50% on the basis of interview. In order to be promoted, an employee must secure 60% marks in both components. It is contended that the

¶14

This is a digitally signed order.

¶15

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/04/2026 at 14:06:55

¶16

Petitioners satisfy the said benchmark on the basis of their APARs.

¶17

The grievance of the Petitioners arises from the promotion process culminating in Office Order dated 2^nd March, 2026, whereby they have been declared unsuccessful. It is alleged that the interview process was conducted in an arbitrary and pre-determined manner. Emphasis is placed on the manner in which the interviews were conducted, including the limited time afforded to the Petitioners, approximately five minutes, vis-à-vis significantly longer durations granted to other candidates. It is further contended that such disparity deprived the Petitioners of a fair opportunity to present their candidature. Additionally, it is urged that there was lack of transparency in the process, including non-disclosure of marks and evaluation criteria.

¶18

In these circumstances, the Petitioners submitted a representation dated 3^rd March, 2026, requesting reconsideration of the interview results for the concerned cluster and seeking examination of the video recordings of the interviews to assess whether the process was fair, objective and unbiased.

¶19

At this stage, in the absence of a Counter Affidavit, this Court is not inclined to adjudicate on the merits of the allegations raised by the Petitioners. Nonetheless, considering that the aforesaid representation is pending and the issues raised involve factual aspects relating to the conduct of the interview process, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the competent authority to decide the same. For the purpose of such consideration, the competent authority may, if necessary, examine the video recordings of the interviews and any other relevant material so as to ensure a fair and objective determination. The said exercise shall be completed within a period of four weeks from today, and a reasoned decision shall be

¶20

This is a digitally signed order.

¶21

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/04/2026 at 14:06:55

¶22

communicated to the Petitioners.

¶23

Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of along with the pending applications.

¶24

It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. In the event the Petitioners remain aggrieved, they shall be at liberty to avail appropriate remedies in accordance with law.

¶25

SANJEEV NARULA, J

¶26

APRIL 17, 2026/ab

¶27

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/04/2026 at 14:06:55

Bikash Kumar Mahto and Ors. v. Dedicated Freight Corridor Corporation of India Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bikash Kumar Mahto and Ors. v. Dedicated Freight Corridor Corporation of India Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Aditi Randhawa Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Rakesh Jolly Vs Idbi Bank

Bishwabhbhar Nath Tiwari Vs Union of India & Ors.

Devender Rai Vs Sangeet Natak Akademi New Delhi

M/S Kanika Exports Vs Union of India & Ors.

M/S Malik Seasoning and Spices Private Limited Vs Commissioner of Goods and Service Tax

Commissioner of Police and Ors. Vs Hari Kishan

Asi/Min Rajendra Vs Union of India & Ors.

Nirmala Maurya Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Prodip Kumar Mandal and Ors. Vs Airports Authority of India and Ors.

Usha Pahel Vs Govt of N C T of Delhi & Ors.

Pankaj Kumar Goswami Vs Punjab National Bank & Ors.

Devender Singh Vs Union of India and Anr.

Yashwant Yadav Vs National Education Society for Tribal Students & Ors.