Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Navneet Agarwal S/O Sh. M.K. Agarwal vs Union Of India on 30 October, 2019
Bench: Chief Justice, Mohammad Rafiq
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.18004/2019
With
D.B. Civil Misc. Stay Application No.16785/2019
1. Navneet Agarwal S/o Sh. M.K. Agarwal, Aged About 44
Years, R/o-Kripa Sadan, Rajendra Hotel Ki Gali,
Dadwara, Kota Junction, Kota. At Present Working As
Loco Pilot (Goods), WCR Kota.
2. Mujahat Ali S/o Late Sh. S.A. Khan, Aged About 45
Years, R/o-House No. 156, R.K. Nagar, Kota. At
Present Working As Loco Pilot (Goods) WCR Kota.
3. Govind Singhal S/o Sh. Bhagwat Prasad, Aged About
52 Years, R/o-Manglaitan Station, Kota. At Present
Working As Loco Pilot (Goods) WCR Kota.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Union Of India, Through General Manager, North West
Central Railway, Jabalpur-482001 (M.P.).
2. The Divisional Railway Manager, West Central Railway,
Kota Division, Kota-324006.
3. Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, West Central
Railway, Kota Division, Kota-324006.
4. Aijaz Ahmed S/o Late Sh. Nizamuddin Ahmed, Aged
About 49 Years, R/o-29 B, Waqf Nagar, Kota. At
Present Working As Loco Pilot (Mail Express) WCR
Kota.
5. Rakesh Kumar Sakarwal S/o Sh. R.K. Sakarwal, Aged
About 49 Years, R/o- 29/b, Gayatri Vihar-I, Borkheda
Kota. At Present Working As Loco Pilot (Goods) WCR
Kota.
6. Prahalad Kumar Meena S/o Sh. Shukhram Meena,
Aged About 52 Years, R/o-Namrita Avas, Police Line
Kota. At Present Working As Loco Pilot (Mail Express)
WCR Kota.
7. Manohar Lal Singh S/o Sh. Ram Sevak Singh, Aged
About 45 Years, R/o- Indra Colony, Kota. At Present
Working As Loco Pilot (Mail Express) WCR Kota.
8. Ratti Ram Meena S/o Sh. Dhanpal Meena, Aged About
52 Years, R/o- Ridhi-Sidhi Nagar, Badana, Kota. At
Present Working As Loco Pilot (Passenger) WCR Kota.
9. Ram Lal Singh S/o Vishwa Nath Singh, Aged About 46
Years, R/o- Ravi Vihar, Kota. At Present Working As
Loco Pilot (Goods) WCR Kota.
----Respondents
(Downloaded on 07/06/2021 at 01:06:44 AM)
(2 of 6) [CW-18004/2019]
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mukesh Agrawal
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shailesh Prakash Sharma
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ
Judgment
30/10/2019
This writ petition seeks to challenge the order dated 05.09.2019 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, whereby the Tribunal dismissed the Original Application No.20/2019 of the applicants. The Original Application was filed by nine applicants but only three of them have approached this Court by way of this writ petition challenging its order date 05.09.2019.
The petitioners in the Original Application had challenged the order dated 02.01.2019 cancelling the result declared on 29.05.2018 for filling up the post of Loco Inspector (Electrical), for which written examination was held on seven dates in between 05.01.2018 and 03.05.2018, and directing holding of fresh written examination. Further prayer was made for a direction to the respondents to publish panel of selected candidates on the basis of result declared on 29.05.2018 and if the applicants are found suitable, they should be promoted on the post of Loco Inspector (Electrical) with all consequential benefits.
Mr. Mukesh Agrawal, learned counsel for petitioners, has argued that the Tribunal has erred in law in upholding the action of the respondents by invoking para 219 of the Indian (Downloaded on 07/06/2021 at 01:06:44 AM) (3 of 6) [CW-18004/2019] Railway Establishment Manual (for short, 'the IREM'), which nowhere said that only one officer will set all the question papers, yet the Tribunal has wrongly assumed so. Moreover, the vigilance section also did not point out that there is any violation of para 219 of the IREM. The Vigilance Section merely maintained that due to preparation of the question papers by two different officers, wide variation in the difficulty level had occurred in the question papers but this conclusion has wrongly been drawn by the Vigilance Section on the basis of passing percentage of the candidates who qualified different examination without getting the question papers assessed from any expert committee or otherwise. The view of the Vigilance Section on this aspect cannot be taken as conclusive. There is hardly any dispute regarding one or two question papers and therefore examination of seven papers could not have been cancelled, at the maximum the examination of two question papers could have been cancelled. Learned counsel, in support of the arguments, has relied on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Union of India and Others Vs. Rajesh P.U. Puthuvalnikathu and Another, (2003) 7 SCC 285 and in Dinesh Kumar Kashyap & Others Vs. South East Central Railway & Others, JT 2018 (11) SC 414.
Mr. Shailesh Prakash Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents, opposed the writ petition and supported the order passed by the Tribunal. He has submitted that the Tribunal has arrived at just and correct conclusion. Not only the result of the earlier examination was cancelled but the fresh notification has been issued and the examination are (Downloaded on 07/06/2021 at 01:06:44 AM) (4 of 6) [CW-18004/2019] likely to be conducted shortly. The petitioners and all others who had appeared in the earlier examination again got the opportunity to appear again. If any one of them qualifies the examination, which was now held by providing equal difficulty level to all the candidates, they would be promoted as per relevant Rules. No prejudice has been caused to the petitioners merely because fresh examination has been ordered.
Learned Tribunal on the basis of examination of the arguments of the parties, has recorded following finding in para 8 of the order:-
"8. From the foregoing paras, it becomes clear that the cancellation of the result, (Annexure A/12), of the written examination in this case and proposing to hold the examination again by impugned order of 02.12.2019, (Annexure A/1), was the direct result of the findings on the complaint against the examination conducted earlier and the consequent recommendations made by the Vigilance Section of the respondents on the subject vide their letter of 03.12.2018. In particular, the Vigilance Section had specifically pointed out that 2 of the 7 examination papers were set by one officer whereas the remaining 5, (for the 5 remaining dates of examination), were set by another officer. This is clearly in direct contravention of the specific provision in para 219 of the IREM that only one officer who is also a member of the Selection Board governing the process should set all question papers relating to a single examination. The Vigilance Section of the respondents, in their letter of 03.12.2018, specifically recommended that in view of the irregularities found with the examination in question, this examination should be cancelled. Keeping this in view as well as their specific recommendation that it should be ensured that the same officer sets all the question papers when the written examination is held again, (presumably in accordance with para 219 of the IREM as detailed above), it is our finding that in the specific facts and circumstances of this case, the orders of the respondents cancelling the written examination in question vide this impugned order at Annexure A/1 cannot be said to be arbitrary, unreasonable or (Downloaded on 07/06/2021 at 01:06:44 AM) (5 of 6) [CW-18004/2019] indeed in violation of prescribed procedure. Rather, given the findings of the Vigilance Section and their recommendations with regard to the same as conveyed by their letter of 03.12.2018 to DRM, WCR, Kota, it would appear that the respondents had no option left with them except to cancel the examination in question, especially as the irregularities found started at the very beginning of the entire exercise with the manner in which the question paper for the examination was set."
Perusal of the above referred para of the order clearly indicate that while two of seven examination papers were set by one examiner, whereas remaining five papers were set by another examiner. The Vigilance Section of the respondent has in their enquiry, found wide variation in the difficulty level of the question papers, which vitiated the fairness of the entire examination process. The variation in the difficulty level resulted in huge difference between the success rate of the candidates who appeared on one particular date as against those who appeared in the examination on other dates in the range of 0% to 58.06%. The examination paper was thus prepared contrary to the instructions of the respondent Board. While in one paper, questions were framed with multiple options given to the candidates, whereas in six papers the blank space was left to answer the questions. All the candidates were thus not provided with same level playing field, which affected the competitiveness of the examination.
In view of the above, the Vigilance Section opined as under:-
"4. It is strongly felt that injustice would happen to some of the candidates, if this exam is not cancelled. In view of the above, it is advised to cancel the exam and conduct the fresh examination.(Downloaded on 07/06/2021 at 01:06:44 AM)
(6 of 6) [CW-18004/2019] In view of the above discussion, we do not find any infirmity in the view taken by the Tribunal, which calls for any interference in the impugned order. The writ petition, being devoid of merit, is dismissed.
This also disposes of the stay application.
(MOHAMMAD RAFIQ),J (INDRAJIT MAHANTY),CJ //Jaiman//69 (Downloaded on 07/06/2021 at 01:06:44 AM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)