Central Administrative Tribunal - Kolkata
Railway Recruitment Cell(E R) vs Biplab Ghosh on 8 August, 2025
1 RA. 350/00022/2025 (OA. 350/01413/2023)
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
KOLKATA BENCH, KOLKATA
R.A. 350/00022/2025
(Arising out of O.A. 350/01413/2023 & other O.A.s)
Date of Order: 08.08.2025
Present: Hon'ble Ms. Urmita Datta (Sen), Judicial Member
Hon'ble Mr. Anindo Majumdar, Administrative Member
Railway Recruitment Cell ..... Applicants
- Versus -
Biplab Ghosh & ors. ...... Respondents
ORDER
[In Circulation] Per Urmita Datta (Sen), Judicial Member:-
The instant Review Application has been filed praying for recalling and reviewing the Order dated 10.06.2025 passed by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 350/01413/2023 [(Biplab Ghosh & ors. v. RRC (E. Railway)] and to restore the Original Application in its original position.
2. The Applicants/original Respondents in this Review Application has sought for the following relief:-
" In the above mentioned facts and circumstances, the petitioners most humbly prays that Your Lordships may be graciously pleased to pass the following order:-Digitally signed by Shantanu Pramanik
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=6283, OID.2.5.4.65= Shantanu 133598026844054409pZp0Sk77DU2VN1, Phone= 495dab51bd16f95eab3873746237af9545f09bb414 3baf81a658d7fbc937c888, PostalCode=712223, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER= 1d3af0fbe8dee56095510835a714afdf51d7f6d80c4 812359eaee8938da0637e, CN=Shantanu Pramanik Pramanik Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.28 16:54:13-07'00' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 2 RA. 350/00022/2025 (OA. 350/01413/2023) i. An order be passed to review the judgment and order dated 10.06.2025 passed by this Hon'ble Tribunal in O.A./1071/2023 and O.A./1413/2023 and other connected O.A.s and M.A.s whereby this Hon'ble Tribunal was pleased to direct the respondent authorities to publish the Expert Committee's Report and to re-evaluate the OMR Sheets/answers of the applicants in light of Expert Committee's Report and if they would be found otherwise eligible, then consequently benefits be given to them within a period of 04 months.
ii. Any other order (s) as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper."
3. The applicants have mainly sought for Review of the Order dated 10.06.2025 passed in the Original Application No. 1071/2023 & other O.A.s on the following grounds:-
"I. For that the Learned Tribunal has erred in not appreciating the fact that the issues to be decided were two folds, one being the issue of normalization process adopted in selection process relating to PET, Medical Test and Document verification, and the other being the issue of Answer Keys relating to wrong/incorrect answers, and according two set of WPCTs were filed.
II. For that the Learned Tribunal has erred in not appreciating the fact that the issue of answer keys/wrong answers was fought all along by only Shri Pratap Biswas and no one else. III. For that the Learned Tribunal failed to appreciate that the order in the SLP preferred by Shri Pratap Biswas was limited to only 5 questions to be reviewed/rechecked by the Expert Committee and that these five questions related only to Shri Pratap Biswas. IV. For that the Ld. Tribunal erred in appreciating that the direction to the Railway Board in the SLP after the decision by the Expert Committee concerned only Pratap Biswas and none other.
V. For that the Learned Tribunal has erred in not considering the fact that Shri Pratap Biswas continuously put his grievances throughout all these years, and he had raised the issue within the currency/lifetime of the panel, before the same getting expired.
VI. For that the law of limitation never came in the way of Shri Pratap Biswas from challenging the impugned orders as his claim was a continuous in the case started within the lifetime of the panel.
VII. For that the Ld. Tribunal has erred in not appreciating the fact that the Hon'ble High Court, Calcutta while deciding the normalisation process adopted in the selection process, in its order Digitally signed by Shantanu Pramanik DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=6283, OID.2.5.4.65= Shantanu 133598026844054409pZp0Sk77DU2VN1, Phone= 495dab51bd16f95eab3873746237af9545f09bb414 3baf81a658d7fbc937c888, PostalCode=712223, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER= 1d3af0fbe8dee56095510835a714afdf51d7f6d80c4 812359eaee8938da0637e, CN=Shantanu Pramanik Pramanik Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.28 16:54:13-07'00' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 3 RA. 350/00022/2025 (OA. 350/01413/2023) dated 24.04.2020 in WPCT/49/2017 filed by Bipul Kumar Biswas & Ors and 12 other similar writ petitions had made it amply clear that only those candidates who had come before the Hon'ble High Court, and who did not appear in any subsequent selection process but waited for the result of this writ petition, shall be entitled to this benefit, and neither any successful candidate in a subsequent selection process or an unsuccessful candidate in a subsequent selection process shall get this benefit. VIII. For that the Ld. Tribunal erred in appreciating the fact that an 6 SLPs (one filed by Railway Administration and 5 SLPs filed by the petitioners of WPCT/49/2017 filed by Bipul Kumar Biswas & Ors and 12 other similar writ petitions) is still pending before the Hon'ble Apex Court in relation to the second issue of normalisation process adopted in the selection process relating to PET, Medical Test and Document verification.
IX. For that the Learned Tribunal has erred in its jurisdiction in entertaining an issue that is sub-judice and pending before the Hon'ble Apex Court for final decision, and any order directing the authorities to give consequential benefits by sharing and/or disclosing the answer keys is reopening the issue already settled in favour of Pratap Biswas by the Hon'ble Apex Court is bad in law.
X. For that the Learned Tribunal failed to appreciate that the representations by the petitioners in the present order dated 10.06.2025 were preferred mostly in 2022 & 2023 after the expiry of the panel in 2016, whereas Pratap Biswas preferred the original application during the currency of the panel. XI. For that the Hon'ble Tribunal failed to appreciate that the petitioners in the present cases are in no way similarly circumstanced as Pratap Biswas.
XII. For that the Learned Tribunal erred in recording in page 21 Para 9 that Shri Pratap Biswas had filed an original application being OA 432/2019 as a consequence of which he was given appointment in 2023.
XIII. For that the Learned Tribunal had erred in appreciating that the struggle and/or legal battle of Pratap Biswas relating to wrong answers continued from WPA 3578/2016 in Bipul Biswas and Others vs. UOI & Ors. Whereas Shri Pratap Biswas constituted one of the petitioners among the others.
XIV. That the Learned Tribunal has erred in recording the fact the Pratap Biswas has filed an OA only in 2019 at page 22 in its order dated 10.06.2025.
XV. That the Learned Tribunal has erred both in fact as well as in law in interpreting the law of limitation when it recorded at page 22 and 23 of its order dated 10.06.2025 that "In view of the above facts and circumstances, if Shri Pratap Biswas can be accommodated when he filed his O.A. in 2019 only i.e. after so called expiry of the panel of 2017 and when the new Expert Committee found some answers in the earlier answer key to be Digitally signed by Shantanu Pramanik DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=6283, OID.2.5.4.65= Shantanu 133598026844054409pZp0Sk77DU2VN1, Phone= 495dab51bd16f95eab3873746237af9545f09bb414 3baf81a658d7fbc937c888, PostalCode=712223, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER= 1d3af0fbe8dee56095510835a714afdf51d7f6d80c4 812359eaee8938da0637e, CN=Shantanu Pramanik Pramanik Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.28 16:54:13-07'00' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 4 RA. 350/00022/2025 (OA. 350/01413/2023) incorrect, then in our considered opinion, it has an effect on each and every candidate, including the result of the selected candidates."
XVI. For that the issue validity of the selected panel in sub-judice before in Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP No. and Learned Tribunal does not have the Jurisdiction in entertaining an issue or commenting on a subject pending adjudication before the Hon'ble Apex Court. XVII. For that the Learned Tribunal has erred in condoning the delay of the present petitioners for approaching the Learned Tribunal 6 years after the expiry of the panel in 2017, on the single wrong notion and/or impression that Pratap Biswas too had filed an original application in only in 2019 after the expiry of the panel, and that since the same resulted in an appointment in favour of Pratap Biswas, similarly delay could be condoned in case of these candidates as well.
XVIII. For that the Learned Tribunal has erred in appreciating that the Railway Board's letter dated 20.06.2023 is an internal communication only to ascertain the magnitude of the mistakes committed only to take actions in future to avoid such similar situations, and/or taking considered views after the Expert Committee Report.
XIX. For that the Learned Tribunal has erred in appreciating that only Shri Pratap Biswas preferred one Contempt Petition (Civil) Diary No. 22936 of 2023 before Hon'ble Supreme Court alleging non-compliance of the solemn order dated 30.10.2022 since it was only a judgement in personam, and others cannot because it not a judgement in rem.
XX. For that the Learned tribunal has erred in appreciating the fact that the order that was made in compliance of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's order dated 31.10.2022 in SLP (C) 16330/2022 was dated 21.08.2023, wherein the appointment was specifically made an appointment-in-personam, and till date this order has not been challenged.
XXI. For that the Learned Tribunal has erred in appreciating that the order dated 31.10.2022 is an order in personam and not an order in rem. So the petitioners seeking parity should seek parity with the compliance order dated 21.08.2023 which is clearly an order in personam.
XXII. For that the Learned Tribunal has erred in interpreting the judgement in Rishal & Ors. Vs. Rajasthan Public Service Commission & Ors. reported in (2018) 8 SSC 81 starting from page 27 to page 31 of the judgement dated 10.06.2025, because such a judgement was passed in a situation where 1045 vacancies were available.
XXIII. For that the Learned Tribunal has erred in law in interpreting and applying the principle of Rishal & Ors. In the present situation because the Hon'ble Apex Court there has observed in its para 27 that the benefit of revision of answer keys Digitally signed by Shantanu Pramanik DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=6283, OID.2.5.4.65= Shantanu 133598026844054409pZp0Sk77DU2VN1, Phone= 495dab51bd16f95eab3873746237af9545f09bb414 3baf81a658d7fbc937c888, PostalCode=712223, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER= 1d3af0fbe8dee56095510835a714afdf51d7f6d80c4 812359eaee8938da0637e, CN=Shantanu Pramanik Pramanik Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.28 16:54:13-07'00' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 5 RA. 350/00022/2025 (OA. 350/01413/2023) shall extend not only to the 311 appellants before them, but also to the remaining (1045-311) vacancies still existing as on the date of passing the judgement quoted. Under such a situation the benefit of 311 were made a judgement in rem to unknown eligible aspirants who had till then not approached the Hon'ble Apex Court.
XXIV. For that the Learned Tribunal had erred in appreciating the fact that seats were still available at the time of passing of such an order, whereas in the present situation candidates are working for the last 8 years in those seats, and moreover an SLP is already pending before the Hon'ble Apex Court.
XXV. For that the Learned Tribunal has erred in not recording and/or appreciating the fact that an SLP is still pending this issue before the Hon'ble Apex Court.
XXVI. For that the impugned order is manifestly erroneous, proceeds on ex facie mistake of law and/or facts and warrants interference in exercise of powers of review."
4. We have perused the R.A along with the materials available on record.
5. While going through the records, it is found that the respondents though in their written notes of arguments filed in O.A. No. 1097/2023 along with connected O.A.s, have annexed the judgment dated 24.04.2020 passed by the coordinate Bench of the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta.
However, the Order dated 15.12.2020 passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of (Union of India & ors. v. Bipul Kumar Biswas & ors.) SLP (C) No. 11748/2020, holding inter alia:
" Issue notice.
The respondent appearing on caveat is allowed four weeks' time to file counter affidavit.
In the meantime, the impugned direction dated 24.04.2020 issued by the learned Division Bench shall not be given effect to."
Digitally signed by Shantanu PramanikDN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=6283, OID.2.5.4.65= Shantanu 133598026844054409pZp0Sk77DU2VN1, Phone= 495dab51bd16f95eab3873746237af9545f09bb414 3baf81a658d7fbc937c888, PostalCode=712223, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER= 1d3af0fbe8dee56095510835a714afdf51d7f6d80c4 812359eaee8938da0637e, CN=Shantanu Pramanik Pramanik Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.28 16:54:13-07'00' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0
6 RA. 350/00022/2025 (OA. 350/01413/2023) was not placed on record. This Tribunal had already taken note of the Order dated 24.04.2020, though the Order dated 15.12.2020 was available with the respondents at the time of filing of the Original Application, they did not annex such Order even with the written notes of arguments filed in the O.A. The respondents have also taken the point of limitation but we find that in our Order dated 10.06.2025, we have specifically held that initially both Shri Pratap Biswas and Shri Biplab Ghosh had approached this Tribunal by filing separate O.A.s. Thereafter, Shri Pratap Biswas had filed WPCT before the Hon'ble High Court, which was subsequently challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which ultimately led to appointment of Shri Pratap Biswas. Thus, the argument limitation applies in the cases of Shri Biplab Ghosh & others is not correct since they both had approached this Tribunal simultaneously.
6. It is noted that all these issues as mentioned by the applicants in the R.A. have already been dealt with by this Tribunal while deciding the O.As vide Order dated 10.06.2025.
In Para 4 of the said Order, it is stated that :-
"4. The Respondents have filed their reply statement contending that the written examination and the normalized score is the main criteria for determining merit for candidates who had appeared in the selection process. The successful candidates in the written test were called for Physical Efficiency Test (PET) as per Digitally signed by Shantanu Pramanik DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=6283, OID.2.5.4.65= Shantanu 133598026844054409pZp0Sk77DU2VN1, Phone= 495dab51bd16f95eab3873746237af9545f09bb414 3baf81a658d7fbc937c888, PostalCode=712223, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER= 1d3af0fbe8dee56095510835a714afdf51d7f6d80c4 812359eaee8938da0637e, CN=Shantanu Pramanik Pramanik Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.28 16:54:13-07'00' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0
7 RA. 350/00022/2025 (OA. 350/01413/2023) merit in their respective communities in the ratio of 1:3 of the total number of notified vacancies for that particular community. This ratio was communicated vide RBE No. 166/2005 which substituted Para 7.5(ii) of RBE 121/2005. The Physical Efficiency Test is of qualifying nature which is followed by document verification. The candidates who clear the document verification stage are sent in the ratio of 1:1 of notified vacancies as per merit in their respective communities for medical examination. Since there is no provision for taking interview, candidates who failed to come within the zone of consideration as per merit in their respective communities in the ratio of 1:1 of notified vacancies as per merit, are not sent for medical examination. After following each and every step of selection procedure, candidates who are found fit in medical examination are placed in the provisional panel. The respondents have specifically contended that as per the settled panel thousands of candidates have already the Railways and the currency of the panel of E.N. No. 0112 has already expired on 25.09.2017. Further, it has also been stated that subsequent Employment Notices i.e. E.N. No. 0113 & CEN-01/2015, CEN-02/2018 were also published and provisional panel of all employment notifications have also been published.
They have contended that the applicants appeared in the written examination on 27th October, 2013. Thereafter, they were called for Physical Efficiency Test and Documentary Verification on 26.02.2014 but they were not called for medical examination since they obtained less marks than the last eligible candidate under UR category. The applicants had obtained 82.22 and 79.63 marks out of 100 after normalization of their score and the last eligible UR candidate who was called for medical examination and provisionally empanelled obtained 82.33 out of 100 marks. The respondents have also submitted that only qualifying in the written examination and PET does not confer any right for calling the candidates in the medical examination. Candidates are called for medical examination strictly as per merit in the ratio of 1:1 of the total notified vacancy and candidates who have come in the zone of consideration were called for medical examination and since the applicants did not come into the zone of consideration they were not called for further process of selection process. The final panel of E.N. No. 0112 was published on 26.09.2015 on the official website and currency of which expired on 25.09.2017. They have submitted that this O.A. has been filed after 08 years from the date of publication of panel and 06 years from the date of expiry of currency of panel hence they are debarred from filing this Original Application as per Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
Digitally signed by Shantanu PramanikDN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=6283, OID.2.5.4.65= Shantanu 133598026844054409pZp0Sk77DU2VN1, Phone= 495dab51bd16f95eab3873746237af9545f09bb414 3baf81a658d7fbc937c888, PostalCode=712223, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER= 1d3af0fbe8dee56095510835a714afdf51d7f6d80c4 812359eaee8938da0637e, CN=Shantanu Pramanik Pramanik Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.28 16:54:13-07'00' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 8 RA. 350/00022/2025 (OA. 350/01413/2023) They respondents have relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Bhoop Singh vs. Union of India & ors. reported in 1992 AIR 1414 wherein it has been held as under:-
"Inordinate and unexplained delay or latches is by itself a ground to refuse relief to the petitioner, irrespective of the merit of his claim. If a person entitled to a relief chooses to remain silent for long, he thereby gives rise to a reasonable belief in the mind of others that he is not interested in claiming that relief."
The respondents have also relied on the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana, Chandigarh in CWP No. 13174 of 2015 Pramod Kumar - vs. - Central Administrative Tribunal dated 11.07.2014 wherein it has been held as under:-
"In the matter on finalization of answer key, the Tribunal or this Court is not possessed sufficient expertise to return the finding that answer key is incorrect. In fact, while exercising the powers of judicial review in the academic matter, the wisdom of the professionals alone is required to be respected. Even if there is a mistake in the answer key, the same is applicable universally to all the candidates. Therefore, we do not find that the petitioner has made out any case for review of the answer key by judicial intervention."
They have went on to state that the since the currency of the panel of E.N. No. 0112 has expired in terms of RBE No. 121/2005 (Para 7.11), there is no scope to reopen the matter as the claim is a belated one. The respondents have also specifically averred that the applicants were not party in WPCT No. 116 of 2017 (Bipul Kumar Biswas & ors.
-vs. - Union of India & ors.) and hence at this belated stage they cannot allege regarding non-supply of OMR Sheet and Answer Key against E.N. No. 0112. They have emphasized on the fact that since the OMR Sheets of all the candidates were evaluated uniformly by adopting computerized process hence there is no question of discrimination or bias. The candidates were not empanelled due to lower merit position. The respondents have also stated that the final recruitment panel has been operated only after obtaining clearing from this Tribunal and the selected candidates have already been appointed and they are serving the Railways. They have also contended that selection process against E.N. No. 0112 was conducted strictly as per rules and the applicants have not been discriminated in any manner and the applicants are mere fence sitters Digitally signed by Shantanu Pramanik DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=6283, OID.2.5.4.65= Shantanu 133598026844054409pZp0Sk77DU2VN1, Phone= 495dab51bd16f95eab3873746237af9545f09bb414 3baf81a658d7fbc937c888, PostalCode=712223, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER= 1d3af0fbe8dee56095510835a714afdf51d7f6d80c4 812359eaee8938da0637e, CN=Shantanu Pramanik Pramanik Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.28 16:54:13-07'00' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 9 RA. 350/00022/2025 (OA. 350/01413/2023) and were waiting for the outcome of the application filed by Sri Pratap Biswas & ors.
Finally, the respondents have relied upon a decision of this Tribunal in M.A. No. 350/437/2015 passed in O.A. No. 350/1680/2015 dated 06.10.2016 wherein this Tribunal had inter alia held as under:-
"If we direct the respondents to get the medical test of the applicants done this will be a futile exercise because they did not have secured such mark in the written test so as to be accommodated within the vacancies notified and filled up by the respondents. Therefore, their medical examination not at all necessary and once the direction has been complied with by the respondents by preparing the final merit list in terms of the process of recruitment by following the Rules. We do not find any illegality in publishing the final list."
Hence, the respondents have stated that the O.A. being barred by limitation and devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed at the threshold."
In Para 9 of the Order dated 10.06.2025 it was clarified as follows :-
"9. It is noted that as per the applicants though they had sought for OMR sheet and answer key under RTI Act, those documents were not provided to them. The Examination Notification was issued in the year 2012 and PET was completed in the year 2014. Thereafter, they received no call letter to appear in the medical test. In the meantime, some of the candidates approached this Tribunal praying for supply of OMR sheets, answer keys and challenged the Railway Board's Circular dated 12.04.2006. As this Tribunal had dismissed the said O.A., being aggrieved with, the candidates filed WPCT No. 116/2017 before the Hon'ble High Court and the Hon'ble High Court vide Order dated 25.10.2017 directed the respondents to make available the answer key and ultimately the respondent authorities published the said answer key in their official website on 24.09.2021. After going through the said answer key, the applicants had asked for the OMR sheets under RTI Act and found that the applicant No. 1, Sri Tanmoy Biswas had secured 81.23 Marks and the applicant No. 2, Shri Tarun Dhar had secured 79.64 marks in the written examination whereas the cut off marks of written examination was 82.33 for Unreserved Category. In the meantime, one Pratap Biswas filed one O.A. 432/2019 which was disposed of Digitally signed by Shantanu Pramanik DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=6283, OID.2.5.4.65= Shantanu 133598026844054409pZp0Sk77DU2VN1, Phone= 495dab51bd16f95eab3873746237af9545f09bb414 3baf81a658d7fbc937c888, PostalCode=712223, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER= 1d3af0fbe8dee56095510835a714afdf51d7f6d80c4 812359eaee8938da0637e, CN=Shantanu Pramanik Pramanik Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.28 16:54:13-07'00' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 10 RA. 350/00022/2025 (OA. 350/01413/2023) on 09.02.2022 directing the respondent authorities to set up a committee of subject experts and the said Committee was directed to decide on the disputed questions bearing Nos. 1, 5, 6, 53 and 96 and thereafter to arrive at their conclusion on the veracity of the answer key with respect to the disputed questions and advise the applicant accordingly with a reasoned order.
Thereafter, Shri Pratap Biswas was appointed in the year 2023. In view of the above, we are not convinced with the arguments advanced by the respondents on the ground of delay and latches as written examination was concluded in the year 2014. In the meantime, some candidates of different OAs had approached this Tribunal and ultimately the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta, initially directed to supply OMR sheets and answer keys in the year 2017 and when after facing the Contempt Petition before the Hon'ble High Court, the respondents had published the answer key and supplied OMR sheet to the applicants, they found that there were some errors in the answer key. Therefore, if we have to accept the contention of the respondents that the currency of the panel had expired in the year 2017, then how in the case of one Pratap Biswas, who had approached this Tribunal in the year 2019 and in his case the respondents were directed by this Tribunal to constitute an Expert Committee, which travelled upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the said candidate (Shri Pratap Biswas) was found successful in the said examination subsequently on the basis of Expert Committees report. Thus the respondents have themselves admitted that after re-evaluation done by the Expert Committee as per the direction of the Hon'ble Apex Court, said Pratap Biswas was appointed, it seems that obviously there are some mistakes in the answer keys, which resulted in appointing Shri Pratap Biswas after re- evaluation of OMR sheet vis-à-vis answer key. In view of the above facts and circumstances, if Shri Pratap Biswas can be accommodated when he filed his O.A. in 2019 only i.e. after so called expiry of the panel of 2017 and when the new Expert Committee found some answers in the earlier answer key to be incorrect, then in our considered opinion, it has an effect on each and every candidate, including the result of the selected candidates also. Thus, in our considered view, when in the case of Shri Pratap Biswas wherein also the same question was raised, and his case was considered by the Tribunal as well as the Hon'ble High Court, which was upheld upto the Hon'ble Apex Court, then as the instant O.A.s were filed in 2023 after obtaining knowledge of appointment of Shri Pratap Biswas, who was initially found to be unsuccessful on the basis of initial answer key, these O.A.s cannot be treated as barred by limitation."
Digitally signed by Shantanu PramanikDN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=6283, OID.2.5.4.65= Shantanu 133598026844054409pZp0Sk77DU2VN1, Phone= 495dab51bd16f95eab3873746237af9545f09bb414 3baf81a658d7fbc937c888, PostalCode=712223, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER= 1d3af0fbe8dee56095510835a714afdf51d7f6d80c4 812359eaee8938da0637e, CN=Shantanu Pramanik Pramanik Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.28 16:54:13-07'00' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 11 RA. 350/00022/2025 (OA. 350/01413/2023)
8. From perusal of the final Order dated 10.06.2025, it is evident that Sri Pratap Biswas and Sri Bipul Biswas along with others had filed the initial O.A. challenging the recruitment and prayed for supply of copy of OMR sheets and answer keys. Said O.A. followed by R.A. was dismissed by this Tribunal. Against the said Order of this Tribunal, Sri Pratap Biswas had filed a Writ Petition before the Hon'ble High Court vide WPCT.No.116 of 2017, which was decided by the Hon'ble High Court vide Order dated 25.10.2017 by directing the department to provide the answer keys before the Court in respect of the Employment Notice No.0112 dated August 16, 2012. Accordingly the applicants in the Review Application published the answer keys in their official website and clarified the same on 24.09.2021. Thereafter, the original applicants were not called for the medical test. Therefore, they had preferred representations to supply them the OMR sheets along with answer keys, marks obtained by them and cut off marks etc. under the RTI Act, 2005 and in reply to the same, they received the OMR sheets and other information. Sri Bipul Biswas proceeded with the contempt petition before the Hon'ble High Court whereas Sri Pratap Biswas had filed another O.A. before this Tribunal.Digitally signed by Shantanu Pramanik
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=6283, OID.2.5.4.65= Shantanu 133598026844054409pZp0Sk77DU2VN1, Phone= 495dab51bd16f95eab3873746237af9545f09bb414 3baf81a658d7fbc937c888, PostalCode=712223, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER= 1d3af0fbe8dee56095510835a714afdf51d7f6d80c4 812359eaee8938da0637e, CN=Shantanu Pramanik Pramanik Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.28 16:54:13-07'00' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 12 RA. 350/00022/2025 (OA. 350/01413/2023)
9. It is well settled law that the scope of review is limited to correcting self-evident errors.
As per several pronouncements of Hon'ble Supreme Court, viz. Parsion Devi & Others Vs. Sumitri Devi & Others [1997(8) SCC 715] and State of West Bengal Vs. Kamal Kumar Sengupta [2008(8) SCC 612], the scope of review is very limited, mainly to correct self-evident errors.
10. In the case of Parsion Devi (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-
"Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC a judgment may be open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record justifying the Court to exercise its power of review under Order 47, Rule 1 CPC. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47, Rule 1 CPC it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be "reheard and corrected". There is a clear distinction between an erroneous decision and an error apparent on the face of the record. While the first can be corrected by the higher forum, the latter only can be corrected by exercise of the review jurisdiction. A review petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be "an appeal in disguise". [Emphasis added]
11. Further, in the case of Kamal Kumar Sengupta (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-
"The principles which can be culled out from the above noted judgments are:
(i) The power of the Tribunal to review its order/decision under Section 22(3)(f) of the Act is akin/analogous to the power of a Civil Court under Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC.Digitally signed by Shantanu Pramanik
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=6283, OID.2.5.4.65= Shantanu 133598026844054409pZp0Sk77DU2VN1, Phone= 495dab51bd16f95eab3873746237af9545f09bb414 3baf81a658d7fbc937c888, PostalCode=712223, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER= 1d3af0fbe8dee56095510835a714afdf51d7f6d80c4 812359eaee8938da0637e, CN=Shantanu Pramanik Pramanik Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.28 16:54:13-07'00' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 13 RA. 350/00022/2025 (OA. 350/01413/2023)
(ii) The Tribunal can review its decision on either of the grounds enumerated in Order 47 Rule 1 and not otherwise.
(iii) The expression "any other sufficient reason"
appearing in Order 47 Rule 1 has to be interpreted in the light of other specified grounds.
(iv) An error which is not self-evident and which can be discovered by a long process of reasoning, cannot be treated as an error apparent on the face of record justifying exercise of power under Section 22(3)(f).
(v) An erroneous order/decision cannot be corrected in the guise of exercise of power of review.
(vi) A decision/order cannot be reviewed under Section
22(3)(f) on the basis of subsequent
decision/judgment of a coordinate or larger bench of the Tribunal or of a superior Court.
(vii) While considering an application for review, the Tribunal must confine its adjudication with reference to material which was available at the time of initial decision. The happening of some subsequent event or development cannot be taken note of for declaring the initial order/decision as vitiated by an error apparent.
(viii) Mere discovery of new or important matter or evidence is not sufficient ground for review. The party seeking review has also to show that such matter or evidence was not within its knowledge and even after the exercise of due diligence, the same could not be produced before the Court/Tribunal earlier."
It is noted that the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta while deciding the WPCT No. 49 of 2017 in the matter of Bipul Kumar Biswas & Ors. along with other matters has inter alia held as under:-
"23. ..................Since the Order dated October 6, 2016 was passed by the learned Tribunal wholly missing these aspects of the matter, and without even adverting to whether normalization could be made without deciding that there was a difference in the level of difficulty in the question papers in different shifts/different sessions, the order was clearly passed without considering all the relevant materials on record, and to that extent, is perverse within the meaning of law. The said order dated October 6, 2016 is Digitally signed by Shantanu Pramanik DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=6283, OID.2.5.4.65= Shantanu 133598026844054409pZp0Sk77DU2VN1, Phone= 495dab51bd16f95eab3873746237af9545f09bb414 3baf81a658d7fbc937c888, PostalCode=712223, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER= 1d3af0fbe8dee56095510835a714afdf51d7f6d80c4 812359eaee8938da0637e, CN=Shantanu Pramanik Pramanik Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.28 16:54:13-07'00' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 14 RA. 350/00022/2025 (OA. 350/01413/2023) therefore set aside. Now we come to the reliefs sought by the petitioners and what they can be granted in law.
Xxxxxxx
25. We therefore adjust the entries in the case and direct that those candidates in the selection process initiated by notification No. 0112 dated August 16, 2012 for Group D posts by and/or under the Indian Railways and the Railway Recruitment Board/Railway Recruitment Cell, who have come before us, and have not appeared in any subsequent selection process held by the same authorities, shall be forthwith and no later than 4 (four) months from the date that this order is communicated, appointed in the Group "D" posts and vacancies advertised by the respondents, subject to being found fit I the medical test I respect of such vacancy and without regard to any age bar............."
Challenging the Order passed in WPCT No. 49 /2017 and other WPCT dated 24.04.2020, the Union of India had filed Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 11748/2020 wherein vide Order dated 15.12.2020, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:-
" Issue notice.
The respondent appearing on caveat is allowed four weeks' time to file counter affidavit.
In the meantime, the impugned direction dated 24.04.2020 issued by the learned Division Bench shall not be given effect to."
In the instant case, the Order of the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP No. 11748/2020 was not even uttered or placed on record during course of hearing, neither by way of written statement nor by way of written arguments. Further, while passing our Order in the instant O.A., though we had considered the observation of the Hon'ble High Court passed 24.04.2020, we have only extended the benefit of Order dated Digitally signed by Shantanu Pramanik DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=6283, OID.2.5.4.65= Shantanu 133598026844054409pZp0Sk77DU2VN1, Phone= 495dab51bd16f95eab3873746237af9545f09bb414 3baf81a658d7fbc937c888, PostalCode=712223, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER= 1d3af0fbe8dee56095510835a714afdf51d7f6d80c4 812359eaee8938da0637e, CN=Shantanu Pramanik Pramanik Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.28 16:54:13-07'00' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 15 RA. 350/00022/2025 (OA. 350/01413/2023) 31.10.2022 passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP No. 16330/2022, in the case of Pratap Biswas.
12. In view of the above, we do not find any self-evident errors in our order. Thus, review is impermissible in view of the clear law settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
13. Accordingly, the RA and MA are dismissed. No costs.
14. Let copy of this order be communicated to the respective parties.
Urmita Datta (Sen) Judicial Member Hon'ble Mr. Anindo Majumdar, Administrative Member sp Digitally signed by Shantanu Pramanik DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=6283, OID.2.5.4.65= Shantanu 133598026844054409pZp0Sk77DU2VN1, Phone= 495dab51bd16f95eab3873746237af9545f09bb414 3baf81a658d7fbc937c888, PostalCode=712223, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER= 1d3af0fbe8dee56095510835a714afdf51d7f6d80c4 812359eaee8938da0637e, CN=Shantanu Pramanik Pramanik Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.28 16:54:13-07'00' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0