Central Administrative Tribunal - Kolkata
Dhiren Kumar Nanda vs S E Railway on 4 August, 2021
aerate mat
aa. f ion morn, a ane y i
fod Creal £8 £3 vA
Dat SUNN tale eG 1
| Qe R hoa AS ES ; |
_ IN THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
' . CALCUTTA BENCH
Original Application No.||40 of 2016.-
An application under section-19 of the Adntinistrative Tribwiul..
Act 1985;
Dhiren Kumar Nanda son of Late
Biswambhar. Nanda working for |
gain of. Chief "Office -
Superintendent unde the office of: .
Sr. D.P.O. Kharagpur under the
A.D.RM/SI.° Rly. Kharagpur'
residing at 'Porabangla, -Burdge .
'Town, - Medinipore, : District: aa
Paschim Medinipore, Pin - 721: .
101. |
_« Applicant. os
- Versus -:
1. Union of India, service through:
the General Manager, . South
Eastern: Railway, Garden. Reach,
Kolkata ~ 700 043,
2. Chief Personnel Officer, South
Eastern Railway, Garden Reach,
Kolkata -- 700 043, uy i
3. Chief . Personnel' Officer.
{Administration), South Eastern
Railway, Garden Reach, Kolkata -
700 043,
4. Dy. Chief Personnel Officer
(Gazatted), ~ South Eastern
Railway, Garden Reach, Kolkata --
700 043,
v
5. . Senior Personnel Officer
(Gazatted), . South - Eastern, |
'Railway, Garden Reach, Kolkata -
700 043.
Respondents
6. Sri Prober Majumdar |
APO (G)/KGP, Workshop Office,
Kharagpur, District - Paschim
Medinipore, Pin - 721 301.
.7. Sri Debasis Chowdhury
- APO(W), Workshop Office,
Kharagpur, District - Paschim
Medinipore, Pin -- 721 301.
'8! Sri Bhanulathe, APO.
Senior D.P.O. Office, CKP"s Office"
at DRM Building, Chakradharpur,
'Singhbhum (West), Jharkhand,
Pin - 833 102.
9. .Sri.G. Sridhar, APO
(Recruitment/CPO's Office, South
Eastern Railway, Garden Reach,
iy
Kolkata - 700 043.
10. P.R. Subhramanyam,
Chief 'Staff Welfare Inspector,
4
Court Cell at DRM Building,
Kharagpur, District - Paschim
Mediniporé, Pin - 721 301.
... Private Respondents. .
Nc ee ne
poe ete ote
AA Row BEI Lae ett SEN
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
KOLKATA BENCH
KOLKATA
No.0.A.350/1190/2018 Date of order: OL 108-202)
Coram : Hon'ble Mrs. Bidisha Banerjee, Judicial Member
Hon'ble Dr. Nandita Chatterjee, Administrative Member
DHIREN KUMAR NANDA
VS.
UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS
{S.E. Railway)
For the Applicant + MrALP. Deb, counsel
For the Respondents: None
ORDER
Bidisha Banerjee, Judicial Member This application has been preferred to seek the following reliefs:-
"a) To quash and/or set aside the order dated 27/29.06.2018 passed by the -
Principal Chief Personnel Officer;
b) To quash and/or set aside the order dated 20.06.2016 passed by the Senior Personnel Officer(Gazetted);
c) Direction upon the Respondents to reassess/re-evaluate the answer script of the applicant as per the circular being Establishment Serial No.266/99 dated 28.10.1999 and to declare the result thereafter;
d) Direction upon the Respondents to pass an order upon the Respondents to complete the selection procedure, if the applicant's marks awarded after re-evaluation is more than the qualifying marks in the written test;
e) To direct the Respondents to give promotion to the applicant in one of the A.P.O. post which is still lying vacant, among the posts declared in the said notification dated 26.06.2014 and to fix his seniority accordingly;
f) To direct the Respondent authority to certify and produce the records of this case so that conscionable justice may be done to the applicant;
g) 'Do issue mandate upon the respondents, their men and agents and each of them to withdraw the purported letter/order dated 26.06.2014;
h) Do issue further mandate upon the respondents, their men and agents and each of them to forthwith put the name of the applicant in the select list of promotes or A.P.O. in scale (9,500-34,800) with G.P. Rs.4,800/- from the © date of giving effect the promotion to the post of A.P.O. to other promotees and to refix his pay and pay the arrear thereof if any, with admissible rate of interest on the total sum thereof;
sg iM Race RAM SED Vit ec te
- i) To transmit five answer script of the five qualified candidate before this Hon'ble Tribunal for kind perusal of the same and no such Kind perusal do -
conscionable justice to the applicant;
j) Grant cost of this proceeding in favour of the applicant;
k) Any other order or orders as your Lordships may deem fit and proper by way of moulding the reliefs."
2. The applicant seems to be aggrieved as he has not been included in the provisional panel for promotion to the post of Assistant Personnel Officer/Assistant Welfare Officer (Group 'B') in Personnel Department against 70% quota(LGS) for which written test was held on 28.09.2014(main), 22.11.2014(Supplementary) and viva-voce test was held on 19.01.2015 for notified vacancies, break up being UR-05 and ST- : 01. The applicant prayed for evaluated answer scripts of Paper-I and Il for the post of A.P.0' 30% and 70% examination held on 25.08.2013, 28.09.2014 and 28.06.2015. He was supplied with all the documents except Paper-| of 30% examination which was supplied to him subsequently. He preferred a detailed representation to the Chief Personnel Officer on 27.05.2016 . requesting reevaluation of answer scripts for APO(70% examination) held on 28. 09. 2014 indicating the defects in the evaluation due to which he failed to qualify, but his case was not considered. He approached this Tribunal in O.A.No.1366 of 2016 which was disposed of on 08.05.2018 with the following 'order:-
3. The applicant preferred the representation dated 27.05.2016 to the Chief Personnel Officer, S.E. Rly., Garden Reach which is pending for consideration. : ;
4, Therefore, without going into the merits of this case, we direct the Chief Personnel Officer, S.E. Rly. to consider and dispose of the representation of the applicant and to pass a reasoned and speaking order on thé same in accordance with law, within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of this order.
5. Accordingly, OA stand disposed of. No costs."
| 3. Pursuant thereto, a communication was made on 27/29.06.2018 as annexed to the reply filed by the respondents. Said communication reads as under:-
. Office &t the « Principal'Chuef Persone! Officer Garden Reach, Kolkata-43 ! t ! No: DCPO(GV/CON/ICCICATI766 dated: 27.06.2018 ' - lo . 24 | "Shri'Dhiren Kumar Nanda Ch. (OS) under Sr. DPO/KGP Sub: The OA No. 1366 of 2016 filed before the 'Hon'ble CATICAL by you on the -
issue of re-evaluation of answer Script for APO (70%) selection held on 28909.2014 Ref: Your Representation dated 27.05.2046 Please refer ta the aforementioned. OA filed by you with the Honb'e CAT/CAL and the directive of the Hon'ble Tribunal theteof made on 08.05.2018. In obedience to the Hon'ble Tribunals orders, the undersigned, being the Principal Chief Personnel , Officer/SER (Respondent No. 2) has gone through your representation under reference and disposes as under: ,
(i). The contention' made by you regarding the zero marks/less marks awarded. against . objective type questions does not have any basis. Thé objective type-questions are objective in nattire essentially and they are evaluated objectively and uniformly by the Evaluator across all candidates and there is no question of any deviation in --
awarding of marks therein. Moreover, the answer sheets are coded before they are .Sent to the Evaluator for evaluation for the-sake of transparency: and uniformity .in evaluation. So your plea for re-evaluating the objective type-answers is not tenable, since they may unsettle the very essence of objective evaluation. uniformly.across all candidates.
(#} Regarding your request for re-evaluation. of descriptive typé. questions, this is also for your appreciation that the marks awarded against such quéstions are weighed vis-a-vis certain criteria/benchmark/modei fixed by the Evaluator; which may take into account various aspects eg. legible handwriting, clarity in expression, relevance to the question; etc. You cannot, therefore, claim certain marks to be /awarded'to you against such questions as per your own. judgement which may not . 'be always wholly correct.
(ili) Your answer sheet has' been physically checked again and it is found that the evaluation in your case. has been properly done and there is no improvement of marks awarded to you already. , This disposes off your said representation dated 27.05.2016.
Please acknowledge receipt of this communication, .
.
(Zarina Firdausi) ;
Principal Chief Personnel Officer Ld. counsel for the respondents would submit that even after reevaluation marks of the applicant did not increase, therefore, he cannot seek any further consideration. -
4. By way of filing a rejoinder the applicant would contend as under:-
"As per South Eastern Railway Estt. Srl:No.105/2014(RBE 90/14) it is clarified that-
a) Question paper set up shall make available the Evaluators a gist of the probable answer/important points in respect of narrative type question;
b) The question paper setters have to provide exact answer to the evaluator in one word or in a couple of words as the case may be."
Ld. counsel for the applicant would contend that the authorities have not supplied model answer of the questions despite his request for the same to the APIO (P) and to the Appellate Authority and they rejected his appeal without any reevaluation in accordance with the model answers.
5. It appears the applicant is confident that his marks would be increased and he was wrongly left out. Since this Tribunal is not ina position to reevaluate the answer sheets and the applicant is not satisfied with manner in which reevaluation was done, we dispose of this O.A. with a direction upon the Respondent No.5 or any other ma = competent authority to give a personal hearing.to the 'applicant and after consulting the model answers kept in the custody of the:
respondent authorities, dispose of his grievance by issuing a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law.
6. The O.A. is disposed of accordingly. No order as to cost.
ie (Dr. Nandita Chatterjee). (Bidisha Banerjee) Administrative Member - . Judicial Member sb .