Central Administrative Tribunal - Mumbai
Sharad Shankarrao Jagdale vs Railway Board on 4 July, 2025
1 OA No.922/2022
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
MUMBAI BENCH, MUMBAI.
O.A.922/2022
Dated this Friday the 04th day of July, 2025
Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Shri Krishna, Member (Administrative)
Hon'ble Mr.Umesh Gajankush, Member (Judicial).
Shri Sharad Shankarrao Jagdale, Age 57 years,
Working as Ch. Staff Welfare Inspector in Personnel Branch,
DRM Office, Central Railway, Mumbai Division,
Mumbai - 400 001. Mobile No.9004410 648.
Email Id- [email protected]
R/o: Plot No.7, Swamy Samarth Society,
Olakaiwadi, Sinhgad Institute Road, Kusgaon,
A/P-Lonavala - 410 401, Tal. Maval, Distt. Pune. .. Applicant.
(By Advocate Shri D.N. Karande ).
Versus
1. Union of India, through the Secretary,
Railway Board, Ministry of Railways,
"Rail Bhavan", New Delhi - 110 011.
2. General Manager, Central Railway,
2nd Floor of General Manager's Office,
CST Mumbai - 400 001.
3. Chief Personnel Officer,
Central Railway, 1st Floor,
General Manager's Office,
CST Mumbai - 400 001. .. Respondents.
( By Advocate Ms.Sharanya Sinha ).
Order reserved on : 27.06.2025
Order pronounced on : 04.07.2025
Digitally signed by Khushboo Mittal Gupta
Khushboo DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=6dbe5c2d6885491895b4fb8ef3642a0b, Phone=
8985c11fad2960cfbb159f98c2764347c7a4ffbc50d436d4fe5701484c759b92,
PostalCode=411060, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER=
870759ef2f1952335c4269bf3698e2204e6521bc46faf0d3fefceadf0c12c639, CN=
Khushboo Mittal Gupta
Mittal Gupta
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2025.07.04 18:07:59+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0
2 OA No.922/2022
ORDER
Per : Umesh Gajankush, Member (J)
The present Original Application has been filed by the applicant by seeking the following reliefs:
"1) This Hon'ble Tribunal will be pleased to call for the records of the case which led to the declaration of the Impugned Panel (A-1) & after going through its propriety & legality, be please direct the Respondent No.1 to amend it by the interpolating the name of the Applicant in the said Panel at appropriate place with its all Consequential benefits arising thereof.
2) Any other relief(s) that this Hon'ble Tribunal may thing deems fit.
3) Cost of the OA be ordered on the Respondents."
2. Brief facts of the case are that while working as Chief Staff Welfare Inspector under the office of DRM (Personnel Branch) in Mumbai Division of Central Railway at CSMT Mumbai, the respondents had issued a notification for selection to the post of Asstt. Personnel Officer (in short APO) on 31.05.2019. The applicant was one of the candidates for the post of Asstt. Personnel Officer, Level-8 (PB-2 + GP Rs.4800/-) against 70% selection quota in Personnel Branch. It is stated that the Railway Board in their order RBE No.53/2019 dated 19.03.2019 have introduced 100% objective type multiple choice questions in the Digitally signed by Khushboo Mittal Gupta Khushboo DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=6dbe5c2d6885491895b4fb8ef3642a0b, Phone= 8985c11fad2960cfbb159f98c2764347c7a4ffbc50d436d4fe5701484c759b92, PostalCode=411060, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 870759ef2f1952335c4269bf3698e2204e6521bc46faf0d3fefceadf0c12c639, CN= Khushboo Mittal Gupta Mittal Gupta Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.07.04 18:07:59+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 3 OA No.922/2022 written examinations held as part of selection for promotion from Group 'C' to Group 'B' post.
2.1. It is further submitted that the selection process for promotion to the post of APO was initiated in the year 2019 which was challenged by one of the candidates in the Court for irregularities occurred therein. The Hon'ble High Court, Mumbai in Writ Petition No.1147/2021 vide order dated 13.07.2021 had upheld the judgment of the Tribunal and directed the Central Railway Administration to conduct the written test afresh.
Thereafter, in terms of order of the Hon'ble High Court of Mumbai, the respondents conducted the selection process from the stage of written test afresh. However, the Selection Committee have conducted the said selection in violation of the several provisions of IREM and the extant orders of the Board.
2.2. It is submitted that due to incorrect answer key, the applicant was declared fail in the written test. He had secured 56 marks in the written test against mandatory 60 marks. The respondents have published the provisional panel vide office letter No.P/CR/HQ/Gaz.Sel./260/7/APO (70%)-1 dated 20.06.2022. It is further stated that the applicant has preferred representation dated 16.08.2022 to the Railway Board, the General Manager and the Chief Personnel Officer against the conduct of Digitally signed by Khushboo Mittal Gupta Khushboo DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=6dbe5c2d6885491895b4fb8ef3642a0b, Phone= 8985c11fad2960cfbb159f98c2764347c7a4ffbc50d436d4fe5701484c759b92, PostalCode=411060, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 870759ef2f1952335c4269bf3698e2204e6521bc46faf0d3fefceadf0c12c639, CN= Khushboo Mittal Gupta Mittal Gupta Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.07.04 18:07:59+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 4 OA No.922/2022 the said selection (especially against the incorrect evaluation of his answer sheet).
2.3. It is stated that the applicant has obtained answer key under the RTI Act and it was transpired from the question paper, answer sheet and answer key of the applicant that answers of several questions are incorrect. The applicant has raised specific grievance in respect of Question No.8, 19, 27, 32, 42, 62, 89 and 95 and in support of the aforesaid, the applicant has placed on record the information (Annex-A-
10). It is further stated that in case of evaluation of OMR Answer sheets, the Board's extant orders dated 19.05.2022 and 09.06.2011, which are circulated by the Headquarters Office (Ruling Section) CSMT, Mumbai which stipulates that "...whenever, any question(s) in the question paper(s) is found to be incorrect the question(s) may be omitted from the scope of the evaluation instead of giving marks and raw score may be assessed on percentage basis." It is submitted that had there not been mistakes / irregularities, the applicant would have been scored 75 marks against 56 marks as declared and had got empanelled on the basis of his seniority.
3. After notice, the official respondents have filed reply and contested the O.A. It is stated that a notification was issued on 31.05.2019 for selection to the Group 'B' post of APO, Level-8 (PB- Digitally signed by Khushboo Mittal Gupta Khushboo DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=6dbe5c2d6885491895b4fb8ef3642a0b, Phone= 8985c11fad2960cfbb159f98c2764347c7a4ffbc50d436d4fe5701484c759b92, PostalCode=411060, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 870759ef2f1952335c4269bf3698e2204e6521bc46faf0d3fefceadf0c12c639, CN= Khushboo Mittal Gupta Mittal Gupta Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.07.04 18:07:59+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 5 OA No.922/2022 2+GP-4800/-) against selection 70% quota in Personnel Department to fill up 05 posts (UR-04, SC-Nil, ST-01) as per selection procedure laid down in Railway Board's letters including its letter No.E(GP)2018/2/31 dated 19.03.2019. However, the written test held on 24.10.2019 (Main) and on 29.11.2019 (supplementary test) in pursuant to the notification dated 31.05.2019 was cancelled as per the decision of Competent Authority due to the change of instructions which were contrary to the instructions stipulated in Railway Board letter dated 19.03.2019 for evaluating the answers having corrections made by candidates. This cancellation of written exam conducted on 24.10.2019 and 29.11.2019 was challenged by one of the candidate by way of O.A.No.255/2020 which was dismissed by this Bench vide order dated 29.01.2021, wherein the Tribunal upheld the decision of respondents that cancellation of written test was a judicious decision.
3.1. It is further stated that the order dated 29.01.2021 was challenged by the applicant before the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay by way of WP No.1147/2021 which was disposed off vide order dated 13.07.2021, wherein Hon'ble High Court of Bombay upheld the decision of this Tribunal in order dated 29.01.2021 and granted four months time to conduct afresh written test and in compliance of which the respondents Khushboo Digitally signed by Khushboo Mittal Gupta DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=6dbe5c2d6885491895b4fb8ef3642a0b, Phone= 8985c11fad2960cfbb159f98c2764347c7a4ffbc50d436d4fe5701484c759b92, PostalCode=411060, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 870759ef2f1952335c4269bf3698e2204e6521bc46faf0d3fefceadf0c12c639, CN= conducted re-examination (main) held afresh on 12.02.2022 and Khushboo Mittal Gupta Mittal Gupta Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.07.04 18:07:59+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 6 OA No.922/2022 supplementary written test on 30.03.2022 for selection for Group 'B' post of APO, Level-8 against selection 70% quota in Personnel Department as per procedure laid down by Railway Board's letter No.E(GP)2004/2/72 dated 08.09.2005 and hence there are no violations of the provisions of the IREM and extant orders of the Board. The applicant's contention is incorrect. Paper setting authority vide letter dated 21.10.2022 has informed that all answer given in the key are correct except for Q.No.57 to which answer key given was incorrect and option of Q.No.57 is No.B instead of D in terms of RBE No.190/2018.
The applicant has not raised any objection regarding Q.No.57. However, applicant has given 'D' answer to Q.No.57 which is wrong for which he had been allotted 1 mark, as per the earlier answer key. However, the applicant who has scored 56 marks in written test held on 12.02.2022 (main) and after re-checking of answer sheet, revised marks obtained by applicant is 55. The qualifying marks 60 and hence the applicant has not qualified. It is further stated that the representation of the applicant was decided vide order dated 28,12,2022,
4. Thereafter, rejoinder was filed controverting the stand taken by the respondents and elaborating the submissions made in the O.A.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Shri D.N. Karande, learned counsel for the applicant vehemently Digitally signed by Khushboo Mittal Gupta Khushboo DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=6dbe5c2d6885491895b4fb8ef3642a0b, Phone= 8985c11fad2960cfbb159f98c2764347c7a4ffbc50d436d4fe5701484c759b92, PostalCode=411060, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 870759ef2f1952335c4269bf3698e2204e6521bc46faf0d3fefceadf0c12c639, CN= Khushboo Mittal Gupta Mittal Gupta Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.07.04 18:07:59+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 7 OA No.922/2022 argued that the applicant had applied in pursuance of the notification dated 31.05.2019 for Group 'B' post of APO against 70% selection quota in Personnel Department. He appeared in the written test. The respondents have issued provisional panel on 20.06.2022 (Annex-A-1) in which the applicant's name could not find place. Thereafter, the respondents have circulated the marks secured by all the candidates who were allowed to appear for viva-voce examination qualified in written examination. In the said list the applicant's name stands at Sr.No.100 and the marks obtained in written test was shown to be 56, whereas as per notification minimum qualifying marks was 60 marks. Therefore, the applicant has submitted representation dated 27.06.2022 for getting the information under the RTI Act and after receipt of the question papers and model answer key, it was transpired that there are several questions of which answers were incorrect. It is submitted that to support the aforesaid, applicant has placed on record various material including the OM to show that the answers shown in model answer key were incorrect. According to the applicant there are 8 questions of which either answers in the model answer key are incorrect or question itself was incorrect.
6. It is submitted that if the answers given by the applicant in the said written test are taken into consideration he could get more than 60 marks Khushboo Digitally signed by Khushboo Mittal Gupta DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=6dbe5c2d6885491895b4fb8ef3642a0b, Phone= 8985c11fad2960cfbb159f98c2764347c7a4ffbc50d436d4fe5701484c759b92, PostalCode=411060, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 870759ef2f1952335c4269bf3698e2204e6521bc46faf0d3fefceadf0c12c639, CN= for qualifying the written test. Since there are serious irregularities / Khushboo Mittal Gupta Mittal Gupta Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.07.04 18:07:59+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 8 OA No.922/2022 illegality and, therefore, the respondents should be directed to give appropriate marks to the applicant and include the name of the applicant in the provisional select list dated 20.06.2022 with all consequential benefits.
7. During course of arguments, the learned counsel for the applicant has tried to impress upon us to go into the objective questions, answer sheet of the applicant and the model answer key. And to adjudicate the irregularities committed during the said examination and to pass appropriate orders.
8. Learned counsel for the applicant also placed reliance on order passed in O.A.691/2010 (Shri Arvind Sukhdeo Sonawane) and O.A.522/2017 (Shri Virendra Kumar Verma).
9. On the other hand, Ms.Sharanya Sinha, learned counsel for the respondents on the basis of reply and written notes dated 26.06.2025 vehemently argued that firstly the present O.A. is not maintainable on the ground that raising grievance in respect of incorrect answers the applicant had submitted representation dated 16.08.2022 to the authorities and during the pendency of said representation he has filed the present O.A. in the month of November, 2022 without waiting for the decision of the representation. It is further contended that during Digitally signed by Khushboo Mittal Gupta Khushboo DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=6dbe5c2d6885491895b4fb8ef3642a0b, Phone= 8985c11fad2960cfbb159f98c2764347c7a4ffbc50d436d4fe5701484c759b92, PostalCode=411060, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 870759ef2f1952335c4269bf3698e2204e6521bc46faf0d3fefceadf0c12c639, CN= Khushboo Mittal Gupta Mittal Gupta Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.07.04 18:07:59+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 9 OA No.922/2022 pendency of the present O.A., the representation of the applicant stands decided vide order dated 28.12.2022 which was filed along with reply, however, there is no challenge made to the said communication, therefore, also O.A. is liable to be dismissed.
10. It is further contended that the applicant had participated in the selection process with open eyes and, therefore, after not getting selected in the said selection process now he is not permitted to challenge the action of the respondents. To support the aforesaid contention, the learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Om Prakash Shukla Vs. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla and Others, reported in 1986 (Supp) SCC 285.
11. It is further contended that after receipt of the representation of the applicant, the representation regarding answer key and question was forwarded to paper setting authority for clarification. The paper setting authority vide letter dated 23.10.2022 has informed that all answers in the key are correct, except Question No.57 to which answer key was given was incorrect. The position on the representation dated 16.08.2022 of applicant was put up to General Manager. Thereafter, 22 answer books of main written test held on 12.02.2022 of all the candidates duly re-coded and handed over to Evaluating Officer for rechecking. After rechecking, modified result of written test was declared on 15.12.2022. Digitally signed by Khushboo Mittal Gupta
Khushboo DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=6dbe5c2d6885491895b4fb8ef3642a0b, Phone= 8985c11fad2960cfbb159f98c2764347c7a4ffbc50d436d4fe5701484c759b92, PostalCode=411060, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 870759ef2f1952335c4269bf3698e2204e6521bc46faf0d3fefceadf0c12c639, CN= Khushboo Mittal Gupta Mittal Gupta Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.07.04 18:07:59+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 10 OA No.922/2022
12. Learned counsel for the respondents based upon the documents appended to written notes submitted that the grievance raised by the applicant in respect of particular question have been taken note of the experts and Competent Authority of the respondents.
13. It is submitted that in the given facts and circumstances of the case, scrutiny of question papers and answer sheets by Courts/Tribunal which lacks expertise in academic matters, is not permissible. It is the domain and prerogative of the experts. Under these circumstances in the limited scope of judicial review no interference can be called for in the present O.A. and the same is liable to be dismissed.
14. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record, it is not in dispute that the notification dated 31.05.2019 was issued for formation of panel for Group 'B' post of APO against 70% selection quota in Personnel Department. Clause 7 specifically provides that 70% selection quota ceases of written examination followed by viva-
voce. The written examination shall comprises of one paper which shall have 100% multiple type questions only and as per Clause 7 (c) the qualifying marks was 60 marks out of 100. It is also not in dispute that the applicant participated in the written examination. Thereafter, the impugned provisional panel was issued on 20.06.2022 (Annex-A-1). In the said provisional panel, the name of the applicant could not find place. Digitally signed by Khushboo Mittal Gupta Khushboo DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=6dbe5c2d6885491895b4fb8ef3642a0b, Phone= 8985c11fad2960cfbb159f98c2764347c7a4ffbc50d436d4fe5701484c759b92, PostalCode=411060, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 870759ef2f1952335c4269bf3698e2204e6521bc46faf0d3fefceadf0c12c639, CN= Khushboo Mittal Gupta Mittal Gupta Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.07.04 18:07:59+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 11 OA No.922/2022 On 23.06.2022, the marks secured by all candidates who were allowed to appear for viva-voce after qualifying in written examination and the marks secured in the written test were circulated. In the said list the name of the applicant have been placed at Sr.No.100 and marks obtained in written test i.e. 56, whereas the qualifying marks was 60.
15. It is the case of the applicant that after knowing the aforesaid written test marks 56, he sought information under the RTI Act and received the question paper, answer sheet of the applicant, model answer key. Thereafter, according to the applicant there are six questions in respect of which either there was incorrect answers in the model answer keys or question itself were not correct and, therefore, representation was submitted.
16. It has come on the record that during the pendency of the said representation, the official respondents taken note of the representation of the applicant in respect of every information which was sought under the RTI Act and at Sr.No.4.3 of the said letter dated 28.12.2022 while taking note of the grievance raised by the applicant in respect of all questions including Question No.57 in respect of which there was no grievance of the applicant, a categorical remark was recorded as under:
"Paper setting authority has informed that all answer given Khushboo Digitally signed by Khushboo Mittal Gupta DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=6dbe5c2d6885491895b4fb8ef3642a0b, Phone= 8985c11fad2960cfbb159f98c2764347c7a4ffbc50d436d4fe5701484c759b92, PostalCode=411060, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 870759ef2f1952335c4269bf3698e2204e6521bc46faf0d3fefceadf0c12c639, CN= in the key are correct except for Q.No.57 to which answer Khushboo Mittal Gupta Mittal Gupta Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.07.04 18:07:59+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 12 OA No.922/2022 key given was incorrect and needs to be changed to Option No.B instead of D in terms of RBE No.190/2018. However, Shri Sharad S. Jagdale has not raised any objection reg Q.No.57."
17. The respondents categorically in their reply stated that after receipt of the representation of the applicant, answer key and questions were forwarded to the paper setting authority for clarification. The said authority was given clarification vide letter dated 21.10.2022 and thereafter the representation dated 16.08.2022 was put up to General Manager. Further, 122 answer books of main written test held on 12.02.2022 of the candidates, duly re-coded and handed over to Evaluating Officer for re-checking. After re-checking modified result was declared on 15.12.2022. The aforesaid actions of the respondents clearly shows that communication dated 28.12.2022 was issued after opinion / clarifications received from the experts.
18. At this stage, it would be appropriate to refer the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vikesh Kumar Gupta and Another Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, reported in (2021) 2 SCC 309 and relevant paragraphs 14,15,16 and 17 reads as under:
"14. Though re-evaluation can be directed if rules permit, this Court has deprecated the practice of re- evaluation and scrutiny of the questions by the courts which lack expertise in academic matters. It is not permissible for the High Court to examine the question papers and answer Digitally signed by Khushboo Mittal Gupta Khushboo DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=6dbe5c2d6885491895b4fb8ef3642a0b, Phone= 8985c11fad2960cfbb159f98c2764347c7a4ffbc50d436d4fe5701484c759b92, PostalCode=411060, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 870759ef2f1952335c4269bf3698e2204e6521bc46faf0d3fefceadf0c12c639, CN= Khushboo Mittal Gupta Mittal Gupta Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.07.04 18:07:59+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 13 OA No.922/2022 sheets itself, particularly when the Commission has assessed the inter se merit of the candidates (H.P. Public Service Commission v. Mukesh Thakur). Courts have to show deference and consideration to the recommendation of the expert committee who have the expertise to evaluate and make recommendations (see Basavaiah v. H.L. Ramesh).
15, Examining the scope of judicial review with regards to re-evaluation of answer sheets, this Court in Ran Vijay Singh v. State of U.P. held that the court should not re- evaluate or scrutinise the answer sheets of a candidate as it has no expertise in the matters and the academic matters are best left to academics. This Court in the said judgment further held as follows: (Ran Vijay Singh case, SCC PP.369- 70, PARAS 31-32) "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 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 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 Khushboo Digitally signed by Khushboo Mittal Gupta DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=6dbe5c2d6885491895b4fb8ef3642a0b, Phone= 8985c11fad2960cfbb159f98c2764347c7a4ffbc50d436d4fe5701484c759b92, PostalCode=411060, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 870759ef2f1952335c4269bf3698e2204e6521bc46faf0d3fefceadf0c12c639, CN= put in a tremendous effort in preparing for an Khushboo Mittal Gupta Mittal Gupta Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.07.04 18:07:59+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 14 OA No.922/2022 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 eighty 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."
16. In view of the above law laid down by this Court, it was not open to the Division Bench to have examined the correctness of the questions and the answer key to come to a conclusion different from that of the expert committee in its judgment dated 12.3.2019. Reliance was placed by the appellants on Richal v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission. In the said judgment, this Court interfered with the selection process only after obtaining the opinion of an expert committee but did not enter into the correctness of the questions and answers by itself. Therefore, the said judgment is not relevant for adjudication of the dispute in this case.
17. A perusal of the above judgments would make it clear that courts should be very show in interfering with expert opinion in academic matters. In any event, assessment of the questions by the courts itself to arrive at correct answers is not permissible. The delay in finalisation of Digitally signed by Khushboo Mittal Gupta Khushboo DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=6dbe5c2d6885491895b4fb8ef3642a0b, Phone= 8985c11fad2960cfbb159f98c2764347c7a4ffbc50d436d4fe5701484c759b92, PostalCode=411060, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 870759ef2f1952335c4269bf3698e2204e6521bc46faf0d3fefceadf0c12c639, CN= Khushboo Mittal Gupta Mittal Gupta Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.07.04 18:07:59+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 15 OA No.922/2022 appointments to public posts is mainly caused due to pendency of cases challenging selections pending in courts for a long period of time. The cascading effect of delay in appointments is the continuance of those appointed on temporary basis and their claims for regularisation. The other consequence resulting from delayed appointments to public posts is the serious damage caused to administration due to lack of sufficient personnel."
19. In view of the observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vikesh Kumar Gupta and Another (supra), the contention of the applicant to embark upon question papers, answer sheet, model answer key and material placed by him in respect of his grievance is not permissible. Further, in view of the principle laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Vikesh Kumar Gupta and Another (supra) and orders relied by learned counsel for the applicant in case of Arvind Sukhdeo Sonawane and Virendra Kumar Verma (supra) are not helpful to the applicant.
20. Even otherwise the representation of the applicant was taken into consideration by the experts at one hand and by the Administrative Officer i.e. General Manager as per reply subsequently and the said communication is not under challenge. Therefore, also no ground is made out for interference in the present O.A. Digitally signed by Khushboo Mittal Gupta Khushboo DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=6dbe5c2d6885491895b4fb8ef3642a0b, Phone= 8985c11fad2960cfbb159f98c2764347c7a4ffbc50d436d4fe5701484c759b92, PostalCode=411060, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 870759ef2f1952335c4269bf3698e2204e6521bc46faf0d3fefceadf0c12c639, CN= Khushboo Mittal Gupta Mittal Gupta Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.07.04 18:07:59+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 16 OA No.922/2022
21. Thus, in view of the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, no interference is required in the present O.A.and the same is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed, with no order as to costs.
22. Pending MAs, if any, stand closed.
(Umesh Gajankush) (Shri Krishna)
Member (J) Member (A).
H.
Digitally signed by Khushboo Mittal Gupta
Khushboo DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=6dbe5c2d6885491895b4fb8ef3642a0b, Phone=
8985c11fad2960cfbb159f98c2764347c7a4ffbc50d436d4fe5701484c759b92, PostalCode=411060, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 870759ef2f1952335c4269bf3698e2204e6521bc46faf0d3fefceadf0c12c639, CN= Khushboo Mittal Gupta Mittal Gupta Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.07.04 18:07:59+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0