Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Neetu Sonkar vs General Manager, N E Rly on 6 May, 2026
Reserved on 29.04.2026
Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad
th
This the 06 of May, 2026
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Mohan Pyare, Member (A)
Original Application No. 1222 of 2014
1. Neetu Sonker D/O H.C. Sonkar R/o Shic Katra Harjinder Nagar,
Kanpur Nagar.
2. Priyanka Devi D/o Om Prakash Soni R/o C - 570, Barra - 8, Kanpur
Nagar.
........... APPLICANTS
By Advocate: Shri Adarsh Kumar
Versus
1. Government Manager (P), North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur.
2. Chairman, Railway Recruitment Cell NE Railway, Gorakhpur.
3. Deputy Chief Personal Officer, Railway Recruitment Cell, North
Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur.
4. Union of India through General Manager, North Eastern Railway,
Gorakhpur.
..........RESPONDENTS
By Advocate: Shri Rishi Kumar
ORDER
(Delivered by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (Judicial) Shri Adarsh Kumar, learned counsel for the applicants and Shri Rishi Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents, were present at the time of hearing.
2. The present original application has been filed seeking following reliefs:
"(i) a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 8-7-2014 passed by RITU RAJ SINGH 2 respondent no 3 (Annexure No. A1 to this Original Application in Compilation II) Cancelling the final result of petitioner's selection for Group D.
(ii) a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents allow the consider the candidature of the applicant and to ensure the posting order to the petitioners on the basis of their final selection in the year 2012.
(iii) any writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem just and proper under the circumstances of the case.
(iv) award cost of this application to the applicants."
3. The instant original application has been filed by the applicants challenging the order dated 08.07.2014 passed by the respondent no 3 by way of which the candidature of the applicants was rejected on the ground of tainted OMR sheet. The brief facts of the case are that vide Employment Notice No NER/RRC/GRP/D/2/10 dated 15.12.2010, applicants for the post of Group D were invited from Gorakhpur Railway Recruitment Centre North Eastern Railway. The applicants participated in all the stages of the examination but upon the declaration of final result vide order dated 08.07.2014, their candidature was rejected citing tampered / tainted OMR sheet. Applicants have alleged discrimination on the part of the respondents contending that when the OMR sheet of the applicants were evaluated through computer, there was no occasion for the respondents to have revaluated the same manually. Respondents on the other hand have contended that manual evaluation of the OMR sheet, even though it was evaluated electronically before, was well within their rights and since, tampering was found to have taken place in the OMR sheet, the candidature of the applicants was accordingly rejected. By way of this OA, the applicants seeks the quashing of the impugned order with a direction to the respondents to consider their candidature and issue offer of appointment / posting orders in their respect in a time bound manner.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
RITU RAJ SINGH 3
5. Disclosing a brief history of the case, learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the applicants had appeared in the written test against the Employment Notice No NER/RRC/GRP/D/2/10 dated 15.12.2010 and were successful in the same. Thereafter, they were directed to appear for Physical Efficiency Test and appeared in the same. Subsequently, final result of successful candidates was declared and the applicants were shown successful. Applicants were also directed to appear in the medical examination as well as document verification. Suddenly, on 08.07.2014, result of the applicants as well as some other candidates was withheld but offer of appointment were issued in respect of other selected candidates. Referring to the remark column of the impugned order, it was also argued that the applicants' candidature was withheld due to the reason that "candidature cancelled for tampering with OMR Sheet". Referring to the aforesaid fact, it was further argued that applicants OMR sheets were evaluated by the computer and no such discrepancy was detected. If there was any tampering in the OMR Sheet at the end of the applicants, certainly the tampering said to have caused in the OMR sheet would have been detected at that time itself. It is also argued that after evaluation of the OMR sheet by the computer system there is no rule or there was no occasion to evaluate the same manually. Thus, referring to facts disclosed in the OA, it was also argued that withholding of the candidature of the applicants citing the aforesaid reason is illegal and thus, prayer was made to allow the OA and to quash the impugned order dated 08.07.2014 in respect of the applicants directing the respondents to issue offer of appointment in respect of the applicants. To substantiate his case, learned counsel for the applicants has placed reliance upon the judgment dated 30.08.2001 passed by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Ashish Kapuria Vs Baba Farid University of Health reported in AIR 2002 P H 80.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents, relying upon his counter affidavit, vehemently opposed the claim of the applicant. He submitted that although tampering said to have been done in the RITU RAJ SINGH 4 OMR sheets was not detected while evaluating the OMR sheets in the computer yet, to rule out any fault, OMR sheets were also rechecked manually and discrepancy shown in the order dated 08.07.2014 was detected. Referring to the counter affidavit and the copy of the OMR sheet annexed therewith as well as guidelines printed on the back of the OMR sheet, learned counsel for the respondents further argued applicant no 1 has used eraser in question no 99 which is apparent from the OMR sheet (Annexure C to the counter affidavit) itself. Similarly, the applicant no 2 has used eraser in Question No 70 as well as Question No 118 which are also apparent from the OMR sheet. The OMR sheet was checked manually to rule out any fault any this exercise cannot be doubted. The order dated 08.07.2014 was passed on the basis of discrepancy occurred in the OMR sheet. It is also argued that process of selection particularly, the evaluation cannot be set aside as inference / presumption is always in favour of purity and sanctity of the selection process. Act of the respondents checking the OMR sheet again manually after evaluation of the OMR sheet by the computer is to strengthen the purity and sanctity of the selection process. Learned counsel for the respondents also referred to the condition stipulated in the OMR sheet and has argued that on the basis of the aforesaid discrepancy candidature of the applicants were withheld. To substantiate his case, learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance upon the following case laws:
i. Judgment dated 29.05.2015 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of Saket Kumar and others Vs State of UP and others reported in 2015(4) ESC 1949 (All) ii. Judgment dated 25.05.2010 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of H P Public Service Commission Vs Mukesh Thakur & Anr reported in AIR 2010 SUPREME COURT 2620.
iii. Judgment dated 06.08.2004 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Pramod Kumar Srivastava Vs Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna and others reported in AIR 2004 SUPREME COURT 4116.
RITU RAJ SINGH 5 iv. Judgment dated 14.06.2018 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission Through its Chairman and Another Vs Rahul Singh & Another reported in AIR 2018 SUPREME COURT 2861.
v. Judgment dated 11.12.2017 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Ran Vijay Singh Vs State of UP and Others reported in AIR 2018 SC 52.
vi. Judgment dated 17.07.1984 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Maharashtra State Board of Secondary And Higher Education Vs Paritosh Bhupesh Kumar Sheth reported in 1984 AIR 1543.
7. Learned counsel for the applicants refuting the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the respondents further argued that the correctness of the evaluation of the OMR sheet by the computer will always be more than the manual evaluation. There is no provision to recheck the OMR sheet manually after evaluation made by the computer. Learned counsel for the applicants referring to the instructions contained in the OMR sheet particularly the condition No 4 argued that it was clearly stated therein that answer sheets will be evaluated through electronic scanning process.
Incorrect and incomplete entries may render the answer sheets invalid. Referring to the aforesaid facts, it was argued that since no discrepancy was found in the electronic evaluation process thus the impugned order passed in the matter is illegal. It is next argued that the respondents are duty bound to follow the instructions contained in the OMR sheet stipulated by them.
8. We have considered the rival contentions and gone through the records and also carefully perused the case laws relied upon.
9. Before discussing the facts, it will be useful to quote the relevant / relied upon portion of the case laws referred by the contesting parties. As far as the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Saket Kumar (supra) which has been relied upon by the respondents' counsel is concerned, in that case, the issue was different than the present case. In that case, the RITU RAJ SINGH 6 Hon'ble High Court was deciding as to whether those candidatews who have followed the OMR guidelines could be equated with those who have not followed them. And the Court ruled in negative. Further, relying upon the judgment of Mukesh Thakur (supra) passed by the Apex Court, following portion has been relied upon by the respondents' counsel:
"24. The issue of re-evaluation of answer book is no more res integra. This issue was considered at length by this Court in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education & Anr. Vs. Paritosh Bhupesh Kurmarsheth etc.etc. AIR 1984 SC 1543, wherein this Court rejected the contention that in absence of provision for re- evaluation, a direction to this effect can be issued by the Court. The Court further held that even the policy decision incorporated in the Rules/Regulations not providing for rechecking/verification/re-evaluation cannot be challenged unless there are grounds to show that the policy itself is in violation of some statutory provision. The Court held as under:
"..........It is exclusively within the province of the legislature and its delegate to determine, as a matter of policy, how the provisions of the Statute can best be implemented and what measures, substantive as well as procedural would have to be incorporated in the rules or regulations for the efficacious achievement of the objects and purposes of the Act... .......The Court cannot sit in judgment over the wisdom of the policy evolved by the legislature and the subordinate regulation-making body. It may be a wise policy which will fully effectuate the purpose of the enactment or it may be lacking in effectiveness and hence calling for revision and improvement. But any draw-backs in the policy incorporated in a rule or regulation will not render it ultra vires and the Court cannot strike it down on the ground that in its opinion, it is not a wise or prudent policy, but is even a foolish one, and that it will not really serve to effectuate the purposes of the Act........."
25. This view has been approved and relied upon and re-iterated by this Court in Pramod Kumar Srivastava Vs. Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna & Ors, AIR 2004 SC 4116 observing as under:
"Under the relevant rules of the Commission, there is no provision wherein a candidate may be entitled to ask for reevaluation of his answer-book. There is a provision for scrutiny only wherein the answer- books are seen for the purpose of checking whether all the answers given by a candidate have been examined and whether there has been any mistake in the totalling of marks of each question and noting them correctly on the first cover page of the answer-book. There is no dispute that after scrutiny no mistake was found in the marks awarded to the appellant in the General Science paper. In the absence of any provision for re- evaluation of answer-books in the relevant rules, no candidate in an examination has got any right whatsoever to claim or ask for reevaluation of his marks." (emphasis added).
RITU RAJ SINGH 7
26. A similar view has been reiterated in Dr. Muneeb Ul Rehman Haroon & Ors. Vs. Government of Jammu & Kashmir State & Ors. AIR 1984 SC 1585; Board of Secondary Education Vs. Pravas Ranjan Panda & Anr. (2004) 13 SCC 383; President, Board of Secondary Education, Orissa & Anr. Vs. D. Suvankar & Anr. (2007) 1 SCC 603; The Secretary, West Bengal Council of Higher Secondary Education Vs. Ayan Das & Ors. AIR 2007 SC 3098; and Sahiti & Ors. Vs. Chancellor, Dr. N.T.R. University of Health Sciences & Ors. (2009) 1 SCC 599.
27. Thus, the law on the subject emerges to the effect that in absence of any provision under the Statute or Statutory Rules/Regulations, the Court should not generally direct revaluation.
28. In the instant case, undoubtedly, the High Court issued direction for revaluation and the respondent No.1 secured 119 marks in revaluation, making him eligible to be called for interview and further for appointment, in case, he succeeds in interview. But the order of the High Court was kept in abeyance by this Court for having fresh revaluation by an eminent Professor, who had revalued the answer sheets and awarded only 82 marks to the respondent No.1.
29. We have asked Mr. Nag, Ld. Counsel to take instruction from the Commission and apprise the Court as to whether any vacancy advertised in 2005 remained unfilled. After taking instruction, Shri Nag informed us that in that selection only 5 posts could be filled up though 13 vacancies had been advertised. However, remaining vacancies had been carried forward and re-advertised and had been filled in 2006 itself. Subsequent to the selection involved herein, three more selections have been held. Respondent No.1 has appeared in 2 subsequent selections but could not succeed. Now he has become over-aged also.
30. Even on any other ground, the respondent No.1 cannot be offered appointment for want of vacancy."
Similarly, relying upon the judgment of Rahul Singh (supra) passed by the Apex Court, following portion has been relied upon by the respondents' counsel:
"13. As far as the present case is concerned even before publishing the first list of key answers the Commission had got the key answers moderated by two expert committees. Thereafter, objections were invited and a 26 member committee was constituted to verify the objections and after this exercise the Committee recommended that 5 questions be deleted and in 2 questions, key answers be changed. It can be presumed that these committees consisted of experts in various subjects for which the examinees were tested. Judges cannot take on the role of experts in academic matters. Unless, the candidate demonstrates that the key answers are patently wrong on the face of it, the courts cannot enter into the academic field, weigh the pros and cons of the arguments given by both sides and then come to the conclusion as to which of the answer is better or more correct.
RITU RAJ SINGH 8
14. In the present case we find that all the 3 questions needed a long process of reasoning and the High Court itself has noticed that the stand of the Commission is also supported by certain text books. When there are conflicting views, then the court must bow down to the opinion of the experts. Judges are not and cannot be experts in all fields and, therefore, they must exercise great restraint and should not overstep their jurisdiction to upset the opinion of the experts.
15. In view of the above discussion we are clearly of the view that the High Court over stepped its jurisdiction by giving the directions which amounted to setting aside the decision of experts in the field. As far as the objection of the appellant - Rahul Singh is concerned, after going through the question on which he raised an objection, we ourselves are of the prima facie view that the answer given by the Commission is correct."
Similarly, relying upon the judgment of Ran Vijay Singh (supra) passed by the Apex Court, following portion has been relied upon by the respondents' counsel:
"30. The law on the subject is therefore, quite clear and we only propose to highlight a few significant conclusions. They are: (i) If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination permits the re-evaluation of an answer sheet or scrutiny of an answer sheet as a matter of right, then the authority conducting the examination may permit it; (ii) If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination does not permit re-evaluation or scrutiny of an answer sheet (as distinct from prohibiting it) then the Court may permit re-evaluation or scrutiny only if it is demonstrated very clearly, without any "inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalisation" and only in rare or exceptional cases that a material error has been committed; (iii) The Court should not at all re-evaluate or scrutinize the answer sheets of a candidate - it has no expertise in the matter and academic matters are best left to academics; (iv) The Court should presume the correctness of the key answers and proceed on that assumption; and (v) In the event of a doubt, the benefit should go to the examination authority rather than to the candidate.
31. On our part we may add that sympathy or compassion does not play any role in the matter of directing or not directing re-evaluation of an answer sheet. If an error is committed by the examination authority, the complete body of candidates suffers. The entire examination process does not deserve to be derailed only because some candidates are disappointed or dissatisfied or perceive some injustice having been caused to them by an erroneous question or an erroneous answer. All candidates suffer equally, though some might suffer more but that cannot be helped since mathematical precision is not always possible. This Court has shown one way out of an impasse - exclude the suspect or offending question.
32. It is rather unfortunate that despite several decisions of this Court, some of which have been discussed above, there is interference by the Courts in the result of examinations. This places the examination RITU RAJ SINGH 9 authorities in an unenviable position where they are under scrutiny and not the candidates. Additionally, a massive and sometimes prolonged examination exercise concludes with an air of uncertainty. While there is no doubt that candidates put in a tremendous effort in preparing for an examination, it must not be forgotten that even the examination authorities put in equally great efforts to successfully conduct an examination. The enormity of the task might reveal some lapse at a later stage, but the Court must consider the internal checks and balances put in place by the examination authorities before interfering with the efforts put in by the candidates who have successfully participated in the examination and the examination authorities. The present appeals are a classic example of the consequence of such interference where there is no finality to the result of the examinations even after a lapse of eight years. Apart from the examination authorities even the candidates are left wondering about the certainty or otherwise of the result of the examination - whether they have passed or not; whether their result will be approved or disapproved by the Court; whether they will get admission in a college or University or not; and whether they will get recruited or not. This unsatisfactory situation does not work to anybody's advantage and such a state of uncertainty results in confusion being worse confounded. The overall and larger impact of all this is that public interest suffers."
Similarly, relying upon the judgment of Paritosh Bhupesh Kumar (supra) passed by the Apex Court, following portion has been relied upon by the respondents' counsel:
"As pointed out by a Constitution Bench of this Court in Fatehchand Himmatlal and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra, etc. "the test of reasonableness is not applied in vacuum but in the contest of life's realities", 1977 (2) SCR 828. If the principle laid down by the High Court is to be regarded as correct, its applicability cannot be restricted to examinations conducted by School Educational Boards alone but would extend even to all competitive examinations conducted by the Union and State Public Service Commissions. The resultant legal position emerging from the High Court Judgment is that every candidate who has appeared for any such examination and who is dissatisfied with his results would, as an inherent part of his right to 'fair play' be entitled to demand a disclosure and personal inspection of his answer scripts and would have a further right to ask for revaluation of his answer papers. The inevitable consequence would be that there will be no certainty at all regarding the results of the competitive examination for an indefinite period of time until all such requests have been compiled with and the results of the verification and revaluation have been brought into account, Far from advancing public interest and fair play to the other candidates in general, any such interpretation of the legal position would be wholly defeasive of the same. As has been repeatedly pointed out by this court, the Court should be extremely reluctant to substitute its own views as to what is wise, prudent and proper in relation to academic matters in preference to those formulated by professional men possessing technical expertise and RITU RAJ SINGH 10 rich experience of actual day-to-day working of educational institutions and the departments controlling them. It will be wholly wrong for the court to make a pedantic and purely idealistic approach to the problems of this nature, isolated from the actual realities and grass root problems involved in the working of the system and unmindful of the consequences which would emanate if a purely idealistic view as opposed to a pragmatic one were to be propounded. It is equally important that the Court should also, as far as possible, avoid any decision or interpretation of a statutory provision, rule or bye-law which would bring about the result of rendering the system unworkable in practice. It is unfortunate that this principle has not been adequately kept in mind by the High Court while deciding the instant case. In the light of the foregoing discussion, we hold that the High Court was in error in striking down clauses (1) and (3) of Regulation 104 as illegal, unreasonable and void. We uphold the validity of these provisions."
Similarly, relying upon the judgment of Pramod Kumar Srivastava (supra) passed by the Apex Court, following portion has been relied upon by the respondents' counsel:
"8. Adopting such a course as was done by the learned Single Judge will give rise to practical problems. Many candidates may like to take a chance and pray for re-evaluation of their answer-books. Naturally, the Court will pass orders on different dates as and when writ petitions are filed. The Commission will have to then send the copies of individual candidates to examiners for re-evaluation which is bound to take time. The examination conducted by the Commission being a competitive examination, the declaration of final result will thus be unduly delayed and the vacancies will remain unfilled for a long time. What will happen if a candidate secures lesser marks in re-evaluation? He may come forward with a plea that the marks as originally awarded to him may be taken into consideration. The absence of clear rules on the subject may throw many problems and in the larger interest, they must be avoided."
10. In this matter, the applicants' case is that no discrepancy was found while evaluating the OMR sheets through computer. Applicants' candidature was cancelled after rechecking the OMR sheets manually. It is also the case of the applicants that if tampering in the OMR sheets has been done and eraser was used by the applicants, certainly that discrepancy would have surfaced at the first stage itself when the OMR sheets were evaluated by the computer. Applicants have challenged the order dated 08.07.2014 whereby not only the candidature of the applicants but that of a number of candidates have been rejected / cancelled on the same ground. Conditions have been printed on the back side of OMR sheets itself RITU RAJ SINGH 11 and all the conditions printed on the back side of the OMR sheet would have been calibrated in the computer before scanning of the OMR sheets. It is not the case of the respondents that all the conditions enumerated on the back side of the OMR sheet have not been feeded / calibrated. In case there was any discrepancy in the answers given by the applicants in the OMR sheet, this fact would have been detected while evaluation of the OMR sheet through computer itself. On the basis of the aforesaid fact, it shall be presumed that no eraser had been used by the applicants in the OMR sheets. The action of the respondents in revaluating the OMR sheets manually after evaluation of the same through computer was both illegal and uncalled for. In this respect, the condition enumerated on the back side of the OMR sheet particularly the condition no 4 can be taken into consideration which clearly speaks the same fact. It is also pertinent to mention here that on the basis of evaluation made through the computer, result has also been published and the applicants were directed to appear in the subsequent stages of the selection process viz. medical test and document verification and manual checking of the OMR sheet was made after that stage. Correctness of the evaluation of the OMR sheet through computer cannot be doubted.
11. A perusal of the entire facts and circumstances of the case and analyzing the same with regard to the pleadings exchanged across the Bar reveals several discrepancies in the action of the respondents. Firstly, as has been observed in the preceding paragraph also, when there was a provision for evaluation of the OMR sheet through computer, which was also a condition prescribed on the back side of the OMR sheet, respondents have failed to cogently establish that for what reasons, the OMR sheets were checked again manually. Secondly, as per the version of the respondents, they were entitled to revaluate the OMR sheets manually even through the prescription given on the back side of the OMR sheets speaks for evaluation of the OMR sheet through computer. This stand goes against the respondents and implicitly goes against the veracity of computerized RITU RAJ SINGH 12 evaluation of the OMR sheet. Because if the computer has failed to detect the tampering of the OMR sheets during evaluation, it does nothing but renders the entire method of computerized evaluation as flawed and projects a serious doubt on the quality, standard and reliability on the computerized process of evaluation of OMR sheets. Thirdly, in this case, since the applicants OMR sheet were evaluated through computer and at that time, no discrepancy or tampering in the OMR sheets was surfaced and it was only in the eventual stage that the alleged tampering was cited after manual revaluation of the same, thus, this also casts doubt as to whether the alleged tampering was actually done at the end of the applicants or the respondents themselves Lastly, no case laws, as relied upon by the respondents, specifically support the case of the respondents on this issue.
12. Thus, in view of the aforesaid observations, the instant original application is liable to be allowed and the same is accordingly, allowed. The impugned order dated 08.07.2014, in respect of the applicants, is hereby quashed and set aside. The ground of disqualification recorded in the aforesaid impugned order does not sustain any further. Respondents are hereby directed to consider the candidature of the applicants in view of their merit and publish their result. In case they meet the cut off marks, they be issued offer of appointment, subject to their satisfying all other requisite eligibility conditions. It is reiterated that while declaring the results, their candidature must not be rejected on the ground taken in the impugned order dated 08.07.2014. This exercise must be completed in a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
13. All associated MAs stand disposed of. No costs.
(Mohan Pyare) (Justice Om Prakash VII)
Member (Administrative) Member (Judicial)
(Ritu Raj)
RITU RAJ
SINGH