Central Administrative Tribunal - Kolkata
Suraj Kumar vs Eastern Railway on 13 March, 2019
p- . <
;
r
;
'.T
i
• v
't;
5
IN THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
i . /
r
T
CALCUTTA BENCH
. f:
t Original Application No. yS* of 2019
r;
I
l
i-
■ An application under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal i r Act 1985;
f: !•
Suraj Kumar son of Yogendra Lai I
Sharma aged about 43 years of
i
near Shiksa Niketan School »
j
Vinodpur Katihar, Police Station l 5:
r Katihar, Bihar, Pin - 854 105, ) ) X Working as Constable No. )f.
\ ■
i
0403775 R.P.F. Post Bhagalpur 1
r
Eastern Railway. Malda Division.
! Pin. Cocia. -- A
k Applicant.
-Versus-
;■
!
f
l
1. Union of India through the
i
t
f General Manager, Eastern
k '
)
b Railway, 14, Strand Road, B.B. D.
•rl Bag, Strand Road, Fairlie Place,
I
/ D. Bag, Kolkata, West Bengal.
■*
I
\ f-
2. The Chief Personnel Officer,
;
X
k Eastern Railway, 17, near Fairiie
*
y Place, Netaji Subhas Road
li:
i Kolkata - 700 001.
P
I
V?
J
t
J
j
"** f'-
■ ***,•**
*« - .1/
/' •X''*''
Y.
L ;
3. The IG Cum Chief Security * • Commissioner R.P.F. 3rd floor, NKG Building, 14, Strand Road, l i Kolkata - 700 001.
/ i h /
4. The Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, Eastern i-
Railway, Malda. fin-coAft.- l ... Respondents.
■i i \ j / f \ I ..■i i
-
\
»
i; r.
,
i
:
1
?
•'- ••r.
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH O.A/3 50/48/2019 Date of Order: 13.03.2019 i i Coram: Hon'ble Mr. A.R Patnaik, Judicial Member Suraj Kumar -ys- Eastern Railway For the Applicant(s): Mr. A. P. Deb, Counsel * For the Respondent(s): Mr. S. K. Das, Counsel ORDER IORALJ A.K Patnaik. Member (T): . ••• Heard Mr. A.P.Deb, Ld. Counsel for the applicant.
'ITS.
2. As no-one appears^©y and Mr. S.K.Das, Ld. Counsel who usually^geSs fo^ em ilways^ present in the Court, on t my request, Mr. De| h&s serv^ ifcng annexures, on him as J I c ■ I do not want the Qffigjal Res; :sente(CHe ard Mr. S.K.Das, in o ■■ •• A) a extenso.
)i /
3. This O.A. has beenViled undei^SectipirT9 6$t Boministrative Tribunals Act, 1985 with the followingsprayers:
* -;v "a) 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.
b) 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.
c) To direct the fespond'ent authority to certify and produce the records of this case so that conscionable justice may be done to the Applicant.
d) 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 to the post of C.L.A in Grade Pay Rs.
4600/-. . .*
e) Grant cost of this proceeding in favour of the applicant.
i I * }
f) Any other order or orders as your Lordships may deepi fit,and proper by way of moulding the reliefs."
Brief case of the applicant, as submitted by Ld. Counsel, is that the applicant ' v joined the post of RPF Constable on 14.08.2004. On 19.0.2016, a notification was issued by the respondent authorities for filling up 11 posts of Chief Law Assistant in GP Rs. 4600/- against 60% departmental quota. Thereafter, written test was held and subsequently written test result was also published but the name of the applicant was missing from the list of successful candidates. Being aggrieved, he filed an RTI. After obtaining, a Xerox copy of the said written examination through RTI and after perusing the-entire^answ^er sheet, the applicant resorted to another RTI application daf^^l'fto 16 in Si/eh \ Scertain the correct answer to question No. 9 and/1!^?quest?^ jnce the?b\as overwriting by the \ (h examiner while correcting tl 9award&Ig marks. Ld. Counsel c ij c \ 4 submitted that had th^examiMTa? s of each of the answer,
0) f which is marked incorrect in: m clones, to question no. lb(9) and lb(l 1), then applicants tQ^i^^^would hav^-in^^gd 63(59+2+2),-and that would be higher than quan^m^ aBcs %P 6§%ndjai ie would have appeared in t the list of successful candidatesT^Me^^sttbmltted that despite his- appeal the authorities are sitting tight over the matter.
5. Ld. Counsel for the applicant fairly submitted that although the applicant has preferred representation under Annexure-A/4 dated 25.04.2018 before,Respondent No. 2, till date no reply has been communicated to him. He further submitted that . the grievance of the applicant may be more or less redressed if his representation is ' considered by Respondent No. 2 within a specific time frame.
6. Having heard Ld. Counsel for both the parties, without going into the merit » • of the matter, I dispose of this O.A. by directing Respondent No. 2 to consider the « representation of the applicant under Annexure-A/4, if the same has been filed and is still pending for consideration, and pass a reasoned and speaking order as per ft rules and regulations within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt ef eepy *> ;• v of this order. I make it clear that if after such consideration the grievance of the j applicant is found to be genuine then expeditious steps be taken within a further period of six weeks to re-evaluate his answer script and take further follow up t action. If in the meantime the said representation has already been disposed of then the result thereof be communicated to the applicant within a period of two weeks.
7. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this O.A. stands disposed of.
No costs.
•• i
8. As prayed for by miffed. Cpufrs'infoij ^applican^c^y of this order, along / Avy/ ryjk fo^hith, with paperbook be iragsmitte^ft»^%&tt A he undertakes to deposit the cost w\( \ tSe Regi&y^wijfwra!?
c »
"s
0 y
□ •*.v
o i
rCounsel pt the parties.
9. Copies of thisWder b [y j : / ' ■ « y,; '» -v ^ .'__________ (A.K.Patnaik) Member(J) \ RK/PS . ✓ i."
v
/ f
/
>