Central Administrative Tribunal - Cuttack
Jitu Ranjan Behera vs East Coast Railway on 17 March, 2026
1 O.A.No. 260/00278 & 291 of 2024
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK
O.A.Nos. 260/00278 & 291 of 2024
Reserved on 10.03.2026 Pronounced on 17.03.2026
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE SHRI SUDHI RANJAN MISHRA, MEMBER (J)
THE HON'BLE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, MEMBER (A)
1. O.A.Nos. 260/00278 of 2024
Jitu Ranjan Behera, aged about 36 years, Son
of Prahallad Behera, at present Intermediate
Apprentice JE under Respondent No.4,
resident of Vill/P.O.-Kantapada, P.S.- Olatapur,
Dist.- Cuttack-754002.
......Applicant
VERSUS
1. Union of India, represented through the
General Manager, East Coast Railway, Rail
Sadan, Chandrasekharpur, Bhubaneswar,
Dist.-Khurda, PIN-751017.
2. Principal Chief Mechanical Engineer, East
Coast Railway, Rail Sadan, Chandrasekharpur,
Bhubaneswar, Dist.-Khurda, PIN-751017.
3. Divisional Railway Manager, East Coast
Railway, Khurda Road Division, At/P.O- Jatni-
752050, Dist.-Khurda, Odisha.
4. Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, East Coast
Railway, Khurda Road Division, At/P.O- Jatni-
752050, Dist.-Khurda, Odisha.
RAVI KUMAR
2026.03.23
15:47:59 +05'30'
2 O.A.No. 260/00278 & 291 of 2024
5. Senior Divisional Mechanical Engineer, East
Coast Railway, Khurda Road Division, At/P.O-
Jatni- 752050, Dist.- Khurda, Odisha.
6. Senior Coaching Depot Officer, East Coast
Railway, Railway Campus, Town/Dist.- Puri-
752002.
7. Partha Sarathi Pattnaik, C/O- Senior Section
Engineer (C&W), East Coast Railway, Railway
Campus, Station Bazar, College Square, Town/
Dist.- Cuttack-753003.
8. Santosh Tripathy, C/o- Senior Coaching Depot
Officer, East Coast Railway, Satyanagar,
Bhubaneswar-751007, Dist. Khurda.
......Respondents
For the applicant : Mr. N.R.Routray, Counsel
For the respondents : Mr. B.R.Swain, Counsel for UOI
M/s. A.Swain, S.K.Ojha, S.Tripathy, Counsel
2. O.A.Nos. 260/00291 of 2024
Debashish Rout, aged about 34 years, Son of
Banshidhar Rout, at present working as Tech-
I, under SSE (C&W)/ECOR/BBS, At present
C/o:- Pravakar Samal, Lane No.3, 2033/DE,
Chintamaniswar-751006, Bhubaneswar, Dist.-
Khorda-751006.
......Applicant
VERSUS
1. Union of India, represented through the
General Manager, East Coast Railway, Rail
Sadan, Chandrasekharpur, Bhubaneswar,
Dist.-Khurda, PIN-751017.
RAVI KUMAR
2026.03.23
15:47:59 +05'30'
3 O.A.No. 260/00278 & 291 of 2024
2. Principal Chief Mechanical Engineer, East
Coast Railway, Rail Sadan, Chandrasekharpur,
Bhubaneswar, Dist.-Khurda, PIN-751017.
3. Divisional Railway Manager, East Coast
Railway, Khurda Road Division, At/P.O- Jatni-
752050, Dist.-Khurda, Odisha.
4. Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, East Coast
Railway, Khurda Road Division, At/P.O- Jatni-
752050, Dist.-Khurda, Odisha.
5. Senior Divisional Mechanical Engineer, East
Coast Railway, Khurda Road Division, At/P.O-
Jatni- 752050, Dist.- Khurda, Odisha.
6. Senior Section Engineer (C&W), East Coast
Railway, Railway Yard & Washing Line,
Kharabela Nagar, Bhubaneswar-751001, Dist.
Khurda.
7. Principal, Multi Disciplinary Zonal Training
Institute (Mech.), Eastern South Railway,
Khargpur, At/P.O/Town- Khargpur, Dist.-
Paschim Medinapur-721301, West Bengal.
8. Partha Sarathi Pattnaik, C/O- Senior Section
Engineer (C&W), East Coast Railway, Railway
Campus, Station Bazar, College Square, Town/
Dist.- Cuttack-753003.
9. Santosh Tripathy, C/o- Senior Coaching Depot
Officer, East Coast Railway, Satyanagar,
Bhubaneswar-751007, Dist. Khurda.
......Respondents
For the applicant : Mr. N.R.Routray, Counsel
For the respondents : Mr. J.K.Nayak, Counsel for UOI
M/s. A.Swain, S.K.Ojha, S.Tripathy, Counsel
RAVI KUMAR
2026.03.23
15:47:59 +05'30'
4 O.A.No. 260/00278 & 291 of 2024
O R D E R
PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, MEMBER (A):
Since, the facts and issues involved in both the OAs are same, similar and arose out of one cause of action, for the sake of convenience and to avoid conflicting decision, this common order is passed, which shall govern both the OAs, viz. 278/2024 (Jitu Ranjan Behera) and 291/2024 (Debashis Rout).
2. Facts of the matter are that for filling up of the 09 vacancies [UR-07 & SC-02] of Jr. Engineer, Level-6, against 25% Intermediate Apprentice Quota in Mechanical Department of E.Co.Rly., applications were invited from the existing eligible employees by notification dated 24.02.2021. On 21.05.2022 and 22.05.2022, written examination was conducted and 42 candidates declared qualified vide order dated 04.07.2023, of which final panel of 09 candidates was published vide office order dated 06.09.2023 wherein the name of Sri Jitu Ranjan RAVI KUMAR 2026.03.23 15:47:59 +05'30' 5 O.A.No. 260/00278 & 291 of 2024 Behera [OA No. 278/2024] and Sri Debashish Rout [OA 291/2024] find place at Sl. Nos. 6 and 7 respectively under UR category. After the final select list was published on 06.09.2023, the competent authority issued letter dated 16.10.2023 directing spare of the selected candidates for training, pursuant to which, they were spared on 05.11.2023 and 02.11.2023 and, after being spared, both of them reported before the Vice-Principal (Mech), KGP. It is the case of the applicants that one Sri Krushna Chandra Sahu challenged his non-selection under UR category before this Bench in OA No. 647/2023 wherein this Bench vide order dated 03.11.2023 passed the orders as under:
"Heard both sides.
Admit. Issue notice to the respondents to file counter and objection to IR.
Respondents to take instruction and file reply by next date with regards to promotion of the applicant as wait listed candidate since he is claiming to be placed at Sl No. 8 and person at Sl No. 1 has refused to join and has joined at other place, therefore he is eligible for promotion to the post of JE (C&W) in pursuance to notification dated 24.02.2021 (A/1) and panel published vide order dated 06.09.2023. Meanwhile till filing of such reply, purely as interim measure it is directed that one post in question that has fallen vacant shall not be filled up without leave of this Tribunal.
RAVI KUMAR 2026.03.23 15:47:59 +05'30' 6 O.A.No. 260/00278 & 291 of 2024 It is also directed that pendency of the OA shall not be a bar for the Respondent No.3/Competent Authority to dispose of representation dated 22.09.2023 of the applicant." [Emphasis added]
3. It is stated that without giving them any opportunity, the Resp. No.4 revised the final select list dated 06.09.2023 vide O.O. dated 22.04.2024 by stating to have been carried out in compliance of the aforesaid order of this Bench and, in the revised select list, their names did not find place whereas the names of Sri Partha Sarathi Pattnaik and Sri Santosh Tripathy were included and reflected under UR category. Consequently, Resp. No.4 instructed for repatriation of the applicants from training. Challenging the revised panel dated 22.04.2024 published after re-evaluation of the OMR sheets in supersession of the earlier final select panel dated 06.09.2023, the applicants have filed these OAs praying therein as under:
"i. To quash the revised panel dtd. 22.04.2024 under Ann. A//9 (so far the Respondent No. 8 & 9) are concerned.
ii. And to direct the respondents to promote the applicant to the post of JE(C&W) in Level-
RAVI KUMAR 2026.03.23 15:47:59 +05'30' 7 O.A.No. 260/00278 & 291 of 2024 6 at par with similarly placed persons of panel dated 06.09.2023.
And pass any other order............."
4 The Official as well as Private Respondents have filed their counters separately. In both the counters, their stand is that there was no wrong committed in revisiting the OMR sheets and, consequently, removing the injustice caused to the candidates by issuing the revised panel dated 22.04.2024 in supersession of the earlier final select list dated 06.09.2023 requiring any interference by this Bench. After filing of rejoinder by the applicants and reply to rejoinder by the respondents, these matters were placed for final adjudication.
5. According to Ld. Counsel for the applicants, there is no provision available in the Railways conferring ex facie discretion/authority to re-evaluate the OMR sheets and modify the panel published and acted upon as done in the instant case. In order to justify the above stand, Ld. Counsel for the applicants has placed reliance on the counter filed by the respondent- Railways in another case, i.e. OA No. 147/2019 (K.Bhaskar Rao RAVI KUMAR 2026.03.23 15:47:59 +05'30' 8 O.A.No. 260/00278 & 291 of 2024 Vs UOI & Ors) wherein it was specifically conceded that "there is no such Railway Rules to evaluate the evaluated answer sheets"
and, taking into consideration the said fact and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pramod Kumar Srivastava Vs Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna & Ors, AIR 2004 SC 416, and H.P.Public Service Commission Vs Mukesh Thakur & Anr, Civil Appeal No. 907 of 2006 & 897/2006, and the law propounded in the case of Ran Vijay Singh & Ors Vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors, 2018 (2) SCC 357, that "in the event of a doubt in question and answer, the benefit should go to the examination authority rather than to the candidate", this Bench declined to issue direction to award marks on re-evaluation of the answer sheets on some of the questions and, accordingly, dismissed the OA No. 147/2019 on 04.01.2024. It is stated that the present case being one and the same, supersession of the select list earlier published and acted upon, re-evaluation of the OMR sheets is unsustainable in law. To make his submission forceable, he has also placed reliance on the decision of the RAVI KUMAR 2026.03.23 15:47:59 +05'30' 9 O.A.No. 260/00278 & 291 of 2024 Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of SI RoopLal and Anr. Vs Lt.
Governor through Chief Secretary, Delhi and Ors, 2000 SCC (L&S) 213, and The State Financial Corporation and another VS M/s Jagdamba Oil Mills and another, AIR 2002 SC 834.
6. It is stated that, according to the respondents, they have re-evaluated/revisited the answer sheets as per the order of this Bench dated 03.11.2023 in OA 647/2023, which is not at all correct. According to Ld. Counsel for the applicants, the respondents misinterpreted/ misdirected the order of this Bench with a few to show favour to others because in the order dated 03.11.2023 in OA 647/2023, this Bench while issuing notice held that "pendency of the OA shall not be a bar for the Respondent No.3/Competent Authority to dispose of representation dated 22.09.2023 of the applicant". The representation dated 22.09.2023 of Sri Krushna Chandra Sahu was for uplifting his name due to non-joining of Sri S.K.Mohanty, whose name appeared at Sl. No.1 of the select list dated 06.09.2023 whereas in the revised select list dated 22.04.2024, it is stated "the RAVI KUMAR 2026.03.23 15:47:59 +05'30' 10 O.A.No. 260/00278 & 291 of 2024 revised panel is published as per the direction of Hon'ble CAT/CTC's order dated 03.11.2023 in OA No. 647/2023 filed by Shri Krushna Chandra Sahu" and, in the counter, it is stated that taking into consideration the representation of the applicants and the order of this Bench so also the request/representations submitted by some other candidates requesting re-evaluation of answer sheets pointing out wrong answer of some wrong questions, by the order of the competent authority, the OMR sheets were re-evaluated and, based on the revised marks, final panel was published on 22.04.2024 . But, who are the candidates, who had submitted such representations have not been disclosed in the counter nor their representations have been produced through counter. Hence, according to him, at no stretch of imagination it can be said that there was any such direction of this Bench for re-evaluation of OMR sheets nor the re-evaluation made was in accordance with any rules or law. Further, according to the Ld. Counsel for the applicants when the revision of the panel visited adverse civil consequence, the same RAVI KUMAR 2026.03.23 15:47:59 +05'30' 11 O.A.No. 260/00278 & 291 of 2024 would not have been done without giving them any opportunity and, having done so, without giving any opportunity to the applicants, the entire action of the respondents, besides being without authority, jurisdiction and competency, is also in violation of the principles of natural justice.
7. E-converso, Ld. Counsel for the official respondents, reiterating the factual matrix of the matter stated in the pleadings, has endeavoured to substantiate their action by taking support of the Railway Board letter No. E(NG)168 PM1-60 dated 29.08.1968 and No. E(NG)1/2018/PM 1/62 dated 27.112018 (RBE No. 179/2018) to state that power exercised by ordering re-evaluation after considering the order of this Bench dated 03.11.2023 in OA 647/2023 and the representation submitted by some other candidates and publication of revised panel after its approval that too in absence of any such allegation of malice or discrimination in awarding marks, on re-evaluation, cannot be faulted with that too.
RAVI KUMAR 2026.03.23 15:47:59 +05'30' 12 O.A.No. 260/00278 & 291 of 2024
8. Ld. Counsel appearing for Sri Partha Sarthi Pattnaik/Private respondent has submitted that after publication of the final panel on 06.09.2023, Sri Santosh Tripathy obtained copies of question paper, final key answer sheets and marks obtained by the individual candidates through RTI Act, 2005; wherefrom it came to his knowledge that there has been commission of wrong and glaring mistake in decision making process in course of evaluating the answer sheets on the basis of wrong key answer. Accordingly, he submitted representation on 16.10.2023 and again on 23.11.2023 praying for evaluation of his answer sheets. The authority concerned, after considering the matter in its proper perspective, got the answer sheets re- evaluated and rectified the mistake by publishing the revised panel, which cannot be said to be an illegal or arbitrary exercise of power. It is stated that such action is absolutely in order. Ld. Counsel has placed reliance on the decision of this Bench in OA No. 559/2014 dated 13.01.2016 (Surendra Nath Dash Vs UOI Ors) and common order dated 27.03.2019 in OA No. 585 and 856 RAVI KUMAR 2026.03.23 15:47:59 +05'30' 13 O.A.No. 260/00278 & 291 of 2024 of 2017 [Matia Pradhan and Anr. Vs UOI and other] and decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa in the case of Sujata Patra Vs Vice-Chancellor, Utkal University and others, 2018 SCC Online Ori 418. Accordingly, it has been prayed that the decision of the respondents being just and proper, no judicial interference by this Bench is needed and the OA is liable to be dismissed.
9. Similarly, Ld. Counsel appearing for Sri Santosh Tripathy has submitted that in absence of any such rule prohibiting the authorities to undertake any re-evaluation/reassessment of the OMR sheets, the competent authority has every right to rectify the glaring mistake, for the ends of justice, instead of allowing the same to perpetuate. When the competent authority satisfied that there was glaring mistake occasioned in evaluation of the OMR sheets has rightly ordered for re-evaluation and, after re- evaluation since Sri Tripathy came within the seven posts of UR category in order of merit, he was selected to undergo training for promotion to JE. It is stated that the said action of the respondents cannot be faulted with in view of the decision RAVI KUMAR 2026.03.23 15:47:59 +05'30' 14 O.A.No. 260/00278 & 291 of 2024 rendered by this Bench vide common order dated 27.03.2019 in OA No. 585 and 856 of 2017 [Matia Pradhan and Anr. Vs UOI and other]. It is stated that the applicants cannot claim any indefeasible right merely because they were sent for training on the strength of the panel published on 06.09.2023 which was found to be not in order after reevaluation of the OMR sheets. According to Ld. Counsel, in consideration of the representations submitted by the candidates, the Official respondents, to avoid abuse of process of law and for ends of justice, exercised their authority by way of ordering re-evaluation of OMR sheets, which cannot be questioned and, thus, this OA being devoid of any merit is liable to be dismissed.
10. After hearing and upon perusal of the pleadings and the documents placed in support thereof, we find that the issues involved in both the cases need to be adjudicated by this Bench as under:
(i) As to whether, in absence of any such rules, re-evaluation of the OMR sheets is permissible in law?
RAVI KUMAR 2026.03.23 15:47:59 +05'30' 15 O.A.No. 260/00278 & 291 of 2024
(ii) As to whether, there is any such rule in the Railways for re-evaluation of the OMR sheets after publication of the final select panel?
(iii) As to whether, the order dated 03.11.2023 in OA No. 647/2023 is to be treated as the direction for revisitng/re-evaluation of the entire OMR sheets?
(iv) As to whether the respondents were right in revising the panel even after the selected candidates, being spared, reported for training without giving any opportunity to them?
11. Insofar as the issue at (i) above, the answer obviously would be in negative in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in view of the submission made by the Railway respondents in the counter filed in the case of K.Bhaskar Rao (supra) that there is no such rules in railway to evaluate the evaluated answer sheets and the law laid down in the case of Pramod Kumar Srivastava v. Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna & Others, (2004) 6 SCC 714) authoritatively holding that in absence of any such provision in the rules, re- evaluation of answer sheet is impermissible, which has also been reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex court in the Civil Appeal No. 8037 RAVI KUMAR 2026.03.23 15:47:59 +05'30' 16 O.A.No. 260/00278 & 291 of 2024 OF 2022 [Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences Versus Dr. Yerra Trinadh & Others] vide order dated 04.11.2022.
12. In regard to the issue at (ii) above, it is noted that according to the respondents, the exercise of power for re- evaluation was done as per the Railway Board Letter No. E(NG)168 PM1-60 dated 29.08.1968 and after approval of the competent authority as provided vide Letter No. E(NG)1/2018/PM 1/62 dated 27.11.2018 (RBE No. 179/2018). Ld. Counsel for the applicants contested the said stand of the respondents.
13. The relevant portion of the Railway Board Letter No. E(NG)168 PM1-60 dated 29.08.1968 is quoted below:
"Sub:- Representations against selections- non- gazetted.
Frequent representations are being received from staff about their non-selection to selection posts and alleging irregularities in the conduct of selection proceedings. When a procedural irregularity is established and the selection in question is cancelled, hardship is caused to those promoted as a result of the selection and more representations are received. With a view to avoiding these complications, Board desire that the Railway Administrations should ensure that there is no procedural irregularity whatsoever in the RAVI KUMAR 2026.03.23 15:47:59 +05'30' 17 O.A.No. 260/00278 & 291 of 2024 conduct of selections. The inclusion of a Personnel Officer in every Selection Board is mandatory and there should be no room for any procedural irregularity, as the Personnel Officer is-by the very nature of his duties-expected to ensure that the proper procedure and rules are adhered to. Before a panel is published, the approving authority should satisfy himself that there has been no procedural irregularity in the formation of the panel.
2. Board have also decided that representations, if any, against a panel should be submitted to the competent authority within a period of 2 months from the date of publication of the final panel. Any representation received after that period should normally not be entertained. However, it will be open to the competent authority who approved the panel or a higher authority to use his discretion and take such action as is considered necessary if he is satisfied that an irregularity has occurred and on that account some staff have been put to hardship."
Railway Board Letter No. E(NG)1/2018/PM 1/62 dated 27.11.2018 speaks as under:
"Sub: Promotion process reforms-Amendment IREM to para 219(l) of Vol.I, Reprint Edition, 2009 Attention is invited to Para 219(l) of IREM Vol.I regarding of selection panel.
It has been observed that there is no uniformity in the practice followed by the Zonal Railways/PUs so far as this provision is concerned.
With a view and to bring about uniformity in the procedure adopted on the Railways and to avoid delays in the selection procedure, it has been decided as follows:
"Where a selection panel has been approved by ADRM in the division, a proposal for modification of panel RAVI KUMAR 2026.03.23 15:47:59 +05'30' 18 O.A.No. 260/00278 & 291 of 2024 may be approved by DRM as the authority next higher than the one that approved the panel."
"Where a selection Zonal panel has been approved by DRM in the Division/HOD in the Zonal Headquarter, a proposal for modification of panel may be approved by CHOD/PHOD as the authority next higher than the one that approved the panel"."
14. In the instant case, select panel was published on 06.09.2023. The respondents did not specifically state or bring into record which of the non-selected candidates submitted the representation and when. However, it is stated that the re- evaluation was made as per the order dated 03.11.2023 of this Bench in OA No.647/2023, on perusal of which, it is established in the said order the representation dated 22.09.2023 of the said applicant is referred to that too, he has made said representation for his upliftment due to non-joining of one of the selected candidate namely S.K.Mohanty and not for re-evaluation. Pursuant to the panel dated 06.09.2023 and as per the letter dated 16.10.2023, both the applicants in the present cases, being spared, reported for training course. Thereafter, vide order dated 22.04.2024, revised panel was published excluding the names of RAVI KUMAR 2026.03.23 15:47:59 +05'30' 19 O.A.No. 260/00278 & 291 of 2024 the applicants. The Railway Board Letter No. E(NG)168 PM1-60 dated 29.08.1968 does not ex facie confer any such authority to re-evaluate the OMR sheets. The respondents also failed to bring into record any such representation, which have been made within two months of publication of panel. Similarly, the Railway Board Letter No. E(NG)1/2018/PM 1/62 dated 27.11.2018 speaks that where a selection Zonal panel has been approved by DRM, in the Division/HOD in the Zonal Headquarter, a proposal for modification of panel may be approved by CHOD/PHOD as the authority next higher than the one that approved the panel. From the tone of the language used in the aforesaid letter dated 27.11.2018, it is clear that the modification of panel can be done before the panel is published. In the instant case, not only the panel was published but also the selected candidates, being spared, already reported at the training centre. Another important aspect, which this Bench cannot brush aside is that in the revised panel, it has not been stated that the re-evaluation and revised panel was issued in consideration of the RAVI KUMAR 2026.03.23 15:47:59 +05'30' 20 O.A.No. 260/00278 & 291 of 2024 representations submitted by any such non-selected candidates in terms of Raiwlay Board letter dated 29.08.1969 and 27.11.2018 rather it is specifically stated therein that "REVISED PANEL IS PUBLISHED AS PE RHTE DIRECTION OF THE HON'BLE CAT/CTC'S ORDER DATED 03.11.2023 IN O.A.NO. 647/2023 FILED BY SHRI KRUSHNA CHANDRA SAHU". IN view fo the above, and taking into consideration the specific stand of the railways taken in the case of K.Bhaskar Rao in OA No. 147/2019 that there is no such rules in the Railways for evaluation of evaluated answer sheets, based on which, the said OA was dismissed, we are of the considered view that Letter No. E(NG)168 PM1-60 dated 29.08.1968 of Railway Board cannot be accepted to be a rule for re-evaluation of OMR sheets after publication of select list.
15. As regards the issue at (iv) is concerned, the stand of the applicant that the "Revised Panel is published as per the direction of the Hon'ble CAT/CTC's order dated 03.11.2023 in O.A.No. 647/2023 filed by Shri Krushna Chandra Sahu" is misnomer RAVI KUMAR 2026.03.23 15:47:59 +05'30' 21 O.A.No. 260/00278 & 291 of 2024 because there was no such direction by this Bench in the said order for re-evaluation and publication of revised panel. The direction of this Bench was that the "pendency of the OA shall not be a bar for the Respondent No.3/Competent Authority to dispose of representation dated 22.09.2023 of the applicant". The representation dated 22.09.223 relates to his upliftment consequent upon refusal of promotion by one of the selected candidates under UR category, which prayer was also rejected by the respondents vide letter dated 19.12.2023 stating that as per the Railway Board Master Circular No. 31 [E(NG)1/2019/PM 1/20 dated 19.12.2019 {clause 7.2(C)}] and para 215, Note(2) of Chapter 2 of IREM Vol. I, if a candidate expresses unwillingness after the selection process has commenced, additional candidate will not be called to compensate for him. Thus, the re-evaluation of the OMR sheets made by the respondents de hors the rules by taking the clue of the order of this Bench is like grinding one's own axe meaning thereby working for one's own selfish interests using someone else's assistance.
RAVI KUMAR 2026.03.23 15:47:59 +05'30' 22 O.A.No. 260/00278 & 291 of 2024
16. The consistent view of the Hon'ble Apex Court, Hon'ble High Court as also various Benches of this Tribunal is that an employee is entitled to a reasonable opportunity of being heard (the principle of audi alteram partem) before any action that leads to adverse civil or evil consequences is taken by the authority. In the instant case, the applicants after being selected, sent for training and while taking the training the select list was revised and the applicants were called back from training, which was certainly adversely affected their interest but was done without giving them any opportunity. Hence, the revised panel obviously was issued ipse dixit contrary to the sound principle of audi alteram partem.
17. It is also noted that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of H.P. Public Service Commission Vs. Mukesh Thakur & Anr., AIR 2010 SC 2620, held that re-evaluation cannot be done in absence of specific rule to the said effect.
18. In view of the facts and law discussed above, the stand taken by both the Official and private respondents and the RAVI KUMAR 2026.03.23 15:47:59 +05'30' 23 O.A.No. 260/00278 & 291 of 2024 decisions relied on by them are found to be of no help to them since it was clearly reflected in the order dated 22.04.2024 that the Revised Panel is published as per the direction of the Hon'ble CAT/CTC's order dated 03.11.2023 in O.A.No. 647/2023 filed by Shri Krushna Chandra Sahu, which having been found not to be correct interpretation and the law, discussed above, the revised panel dated 22.04.2024 is hereby quashed by restoring the earlier panel dated 06.09.2023 with direction to the respondents to issue the compliance order and take further follow up action within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
19. Accordingly, this OA stands allowed to the extent stated above by leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Pending, MA, if any, also stands disposed of.
(Pramod Kumar Das) (Sudhi Ranjan Mishra)
Member (Admn.) Member (Judl.)
RK/PS
RAVI KUMAR
2026.03.23
15:47:59 +05'30'