Central Administrative Tribunal - Kolkata
Sajan Chowdhury vs Eastern Railway on 13 March, 2023
. | 1 : ' ' Pes pos A ae { 0a.313.23
SANTA BAe ee, i
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
KOLKATA BENCH, KOLKATA
O.A/ 350/313/2023 Date of Order: 13.03.2023
Coram: Hon'bleMr.Jayesh V. Bhairavia, Judicial Member
Hon'bleMr.AnindoMajumdar, Administrative Member
SAJAN CHOWDHURY son of Ramsis Chowdhury,
aged about 33 years residing at Village- Adampur,
Post office- Mahadebpur, Police Station- Malda,
District- Malda, Pin- 732121
email id [email protected]
Mobile - 8967713504,
Roll No- 422001706
praying for appointment in the Group-D Post.
--Applicant
-vs-
1. Union Of India, Service through the General
Manager, Eastern Railway, having its office at
Fairly Place, Kolkata- 700001
2. The General Manager, Eastern Railway, having
its office at Fairly Place, Kolkata- 700 001.
3. The Chairman, Railway Recruitment Cell,
Eastern Railway, having its office at 56, C.R.
Avenue, Kolkata- 700012.
4. The Chief PersonnelOfficer, Eastern Railway,
having its office at Fairly Place, Kolkata- 700 001
--Respondents
For The Applicant(s): Mr. B. Banerjee, counsel
My. A. Biswas, counsel
Ms. P. Mondal, counsel
For The Respondent(s): None
ORDER(ORAL
Per: Jayesh V. BhairaviaMember (J):
Heard Id. counsel for the applicant.
2. The applicant has approached this Tribunal under Section 19 of the 'i Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following relief:-
"a.) A direction directing any independent expert authority outride the puniew of the concerned respondent authority to reassess the wrongly assessed questions being 67, 71, 72 and 84 by the respondent authorities in respect of selection process initiated by the Railway Recruitment Cell (Eastem Raliway).
b.) A direction directing the respondent authorities to forthwith allot the petitioner with 5.33 more marks in accordance with law for attempting the wrong questions/options.
C) .A directian directing the respondent authorities fo forthwith reassess -
andar reevaluate the OMR sheet of the applicant and award full marks to question no.67, 72, 73 and 84 in 2nd shiftin the selection process Initiated by Employment notice no. 0172 dated 'Toth August 2012 and to follow consequential steps for recruitment and/or appointment. d.} A direction directing the respandent authorities to forthwith reassess the answer script of your applicant and revisit the panel of selected candidates pursuant fo the employment notice being no. 0172 dated 16th August 2072; otal xis ca
e) A direction directing the respondent authorities to farthwith appoint your applicant to the post of Group-D pursuant to the selection process initialed by employment notice no. 0112 dated 16th August 2012; ! '2.
f) A direction directing the respondent authorities to transmit all records pertaining to this case so that conscianable justice maybe administered to your applicant,
9.) A direction directing the respondent authorities to set aside quash the Answer Keys which was published by a notice being no-RRC-ER/Answer KeyfEN-O112(45) dated 15.07.2021.
h. ) Any other and/or others rellef as your Lordship may deemed and praper."
3. In the instant O.A. the applicant mainly contended that the respondents had issued an employment notice no. 0112 dated 16.08.2012 for filling up the Group D post, in response to i the applicant had submitted his application and had appeared in the written examination. 3.1. Sinee the applicant was not called for medical test, he had sought information under the RTE Act vide his application dated 24.1.2017 and requested the concerned authority to supply his evaluated OMR Sheet with Answer Key and other queries. The respondents vide letter dated 06.03.2017 supplied the information as sought by him under the RTT Act (Annexure A°3), wherein he was informed that the Answer Key ig not available. Further he was informed that he attempted 95 questions out of which 68 were correct and 287 were wrong. The respondents as auch eaaectens at stray, Lie:
te
-
supplied the information for 16 particulars queries 'information sought by the applicant herein. However, the respondents denied to provide the Answer key only a copy of the OMR sheet and other information were provided. Since the respondents have not supplied the Answer Key the applicant had submitted an appeal under the RIN Act before the Appellate Authority and further aggrieved with the reply of frst Appellate authority he had lodged a vomplaint under the provision of Right to information Act CIC. The CIC had directed the concerned CPIO/PIO to provide the information with regard to Answer Key but respondents have not provided the answer key to him.
3.2. Ta the meantime, he came to know several candidates approached the BY} Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta and sought relief for direction to supply the anawer key. The Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 25.11.2017 in WPCT 1168/2017 divected the respondents to made available the Answer o tat Sey to the petitioners with respect to employment 112 16.08.2012.
Thereafter, in compliance of the further direction of the Hon'ble High Court published the Answer Key by public notice dated 15.7.21 (Annexure x 8) .
3.2. Thereafter, on serutinizing the relevant question paper, OME Sheet and Answer Rey, the applicant found that the concerned respondents have wrongly assessed the anawers opted by the applicant in spite of the same are right options. And as such he was not awarded with any mark for the said answers. Accordingly the applicant suffered negative marking far the wrong assessment.
4. Agyrieved by it, applicant has submitted his detailed representation. my Oo on 21.02.2022 before the respondents (Annexure A'10 ) and requested to reexamine his case and after reassessing the answer in the OMR sheet he a on.S13.28 may be allowed to appear in the medical test as well provide him an appointment letter for group D post under Hastern railway. 3.5, Thereafter the applicant came to know that this Tribunal in the case of Pratap Biswas vs UQI vide order dated 09.08.2022 (Annexure A-15) directed the respondent to set up a committee of subject expert who have not been part of the Expert Committee that had prepared the answer key in the selection process of BN O112/2012 and the committee will decide on accurate answer to the disputed question bearing no. 1,5,6,55 and 96 and thereafter arrive at thei conclusion at the veracity of the answer key with respect to the disputed questions and acviee the applicant therein accordingly through a reasoned order.
4. Further it is contended that similar matter with respect te the wrong answer key of the said employment notice reached up te the Hon'ble Apes court SLP () 16380/2022. The said SLP came te be disposed of by Hon' ble Apex Court 6.5. 20228 and it was observed therein that the Expert Committee shall take in independent decision and if ultimately it is found the answer in the answer key were not correct, it goas without saying that necessary consequence shall follow the appropriate decision shall have to be taken hy the Ratlway Board on the basis of the report of ay . : " >, * the Expert Committee (Annexure A-16 refer).
§. On the aforesaid pleadings, it is the grievance of the applicant that after scrutinizing the relevant question paper, OMR Sheet and answer key, the applicant had found that the concerned respondent have wrongly assessed the question no. 67, 72, 78 and S4 in spite of the applicant had opted the right option answer) for the said questions, he was not awarded any marks. Thereby the applicant suffered with negative marking for 5 oo 98.343.23 such wrong assessment. His representation submitted on 21.02.2022 tll date not answered by the respondent. Hence, this Q.A.
8. During the hearing, this Tribunal asked the Ld. counsel for the applicant whether the applicant had raised the issue about wrong nasessment of question being 67, 72, 73 and 84 and had he demonstrated that the answers declared by the respondents in their answer key are not eorrect, in this regard, he fairly submits that the applicant had not stated the said details in his representation dated 21.02.2022. 6.1. Tt is noticed that the grievance raised by the applicant in the present O.A about non grant of any mark with respect to question no. 67, 72,73 and 84 by the concerned authority, the said grievance ag such not raised before the competent authority. At the same time, it can be seen that in the representation dated 21.02.2022 the applicant has aver that the answer key provided by the RRC in regard to some question are all wrongly assessed and requested the railway authorities that after reassessing his answer in the OMR Sheet he may be allow to appear in the medical test. The said representation submitted by the applicant on 27.09.2022 (Annexure A-10 to the O.A) has remained unanswered till date with respect to the grievance that he has been given lesser marks though he had answered correctly in the written examination. 7, Considering the aforesaid factual matrix, since there is no decision on the pending representation of the applicant, this Tribunal without expressing any opinion on the merit of the claim of the appheant, deem it fit to dispose of this O.A at the admission stage, with the expectation that, the concerned respondents will consider and decide the pending representation of the applicant in accordance with the terms and conditions of the employment notice as well the various orders passed by 6 oa.313.23 Hon'ble High Court and Apex Court with respect to EN No. 9112/2012 and communicate their decision to the applicant forthwith. 8 The O. A accordingly stands dispased of, (AnindoMajumdar) (ayesh V. Bhairavia) Member GA) Member (J)