Central Administrative Tribunal - Kolkata
Ria Das vs Rrb (E Railway) on 16 February, 2022
wD. -- 1 OA 1578/2017 v | CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL 1 Ghee se Bs att LIBRA Ry | 0.A/350/01578/2017 . ; Date of Order: 16.02.2022 KOLKATA BENCH, KOLKATA Coram: Hon'ble Ms. Bidisha Banerjee, Judicial Member | _ Hon'ble Dr. (Ms.) Nandita Chatterjee, Administrative Member In the matter of : Ria Das, daughter. of Ajit Kumar Das, aged - about 29 years, being Roll No. _22320481030134, RRB NTPC Examination, . Adv. No. 03/2017, residing at Nabagram, Post Office-Panchpota, Police Station- Sonarpur, Near Saparshi Club, Kolkata- 700152. | ... Applicant -Versus- 1. Union of India, through General Manager, Eastern Railway, Fairlie -Place, Kolkata-700001. 2. The Chairman, Railway Recruitment Board, Kolkata, Metro Railway, A.V. ' Complex, Chitpur, opposite to R. G. Kar. Medical College, Kolkata-700037. bavsene Respondents For The Applicant(s): None For The Respondent(s): Mr. K. Sarkar, Counsel hs 2 _ OA 1578/2017 ORDER(@RAL)
Per: Hon'ble Dr. (Ms.) Nandita Chatterjee, Administrative Member - Being aggrieved with the purported inaccurate evaluation of her answer script for the aptitude test held on 30.06.2017 for the post of Traffic Assistant, the applicant has approached this Tribunal praying for the following relief :-
"fa) An appropriate order and/or direction to issue directing the respondents to re-evaluate the .answer script of the applicant for the Aptitude Test held 0n30.06.201 7 for the post of.
Traffic Assistant.
(b) An appropriate order do issue directing the respondents to transmit relevant records relating selection/written examination for the post of Traffic Assistant.
_ (c) Any other relief(s) that your Honour deem fit and proper ."
2. None for the applicant. Learned Counsel Mr. K. Sarkar appears on behalf of the respondents.
3. The facts as ascertained from the pleadings are that, the applicant had appeared in the RRB examination Adv. No. CEN 03/2015 (annexed at Annexure- A/1 tothe OA), and, that, after having appeared in the and stage of examination (2 CBT), the applicant was called for an online aptitude test. The applicant failed to qualify in such aptitude test and, therefore was not considered eligible for the . subsequent verification stage or empanélment. That, upon the applicant's seeking information through RTI, her marks and calculation details for T-Score were communicated to her (annexed at Annexure- R/1, R/2, R/3 and R/6 to reply}.
That, upon having ascertained her position in the aptitude test, in which ~ her composite T-Score was recorded as 289 on the basis of 18.06250 marks that Me 3 OA 1578/2017 she had obtained out of 30, the applicant has approached this Tribunal praying for | re-evaluation of her aptitude test performance.
4. Learned. Counsel for the e respondents would argue that the benchmark T- Score in. 'the aptitude test "for the post of Traffic Assistant was 42, and, as the © applicant had: scored less than 42 in 'the TG of T/5, she had not been considered in atcordance with merit in the said aptitude test. Respondents would further argue that the candidates appearing in the 1* 'stage CBT. and 2™ stage CBT were also provided with the opportunity of 4} inspection of their response in the CBT, the question booklet used in the CBT, as | well as the. answer key for the relevant question booklet within a stipulated time _ period, and, that,. candidates could submit their objection, if any, in the objection tracker prior to the finalization of the result. The applicant was: already provided with an opportunity as she was provided with all the details of her T-Score, but, as she failed to object on time, her prayers cannot be sustained. _ The only representations on record preferred by the applicant are those in which she had sought replies through RTI. CPIO has duly replied to each RTI query Lin-eceasion, and, hence, no representation for the applicant is pending with the . authority.
Respondents would also cite the judgement and orders of the Hon'ble High Court at-Delhi in WP(C) 2173/2013 in the matter of Ministry of Railways vs. K. G. | Arun Kumar, wherein the Hon'ble High Court at Delhi had rejected the Central orders directing the petitioner, namely the Railways, to 'ovide OMIR sheet.toithe respondents concerned. \ ve Ww 8.03(iii) of CEN-03/2015 stipulates as follows :-
5. 41 OA 1578/2017
-We would examine the contents of. CEN-03/2015 in this regard. Para, t "For the posts of Cat. No. 7 & 8 (ASM, Traffic Assistant) Aptitude Test shall be conducted for ? . ' .
' which candidates equal to eight times the number of vacancies shall be called for. The merit will be drawn only for the candidates qualifying in the aptitude test, with 70% weightage being given to the marks obtained in the CBT and 30% weightage being given to the marks obtained in aptitude test."
Hence, in the selection of ASM and Traffic Assistant, only the candidates qualifying the Aptitude Test are to be considered and the. merit list would comprise marks obtained by the candidates-in the 2™ stage examination (2"? CBT) . st and marks obtained in the Aptitude Test combined in the ratio of 70:30. The instant applicant, however, failed to qualify in the Aptitude Test as per R-1 to the reply, and, therefore, she could not be considered for selection to the post of ASM and Traffic Assistant.
6. No rejoinder has been filed to controvert the arguments of the respondent authorities and none represents the applica nt to agitate on the claim contained in - this original 'application.
Accordingly, we would conclude that the applicant had failed to obtain the "benchmark score in the aptitude test as required for the purpose of appointment to the post of ASM and Traffic Assistant, and, accordingly, there being no merit, the instant O.A. fails to succeed, and, is hence dismissed. No costs.
_ (Dr. Nandita Chatterjee) _' (Bidisha Banerjee) Administrative Member . Judicial Member sl