Central Administrative Tribunal - Kolkata
Shishupal Pramanik vs Railway Recruitment Board on 5 March, 2024
1 OA 784/2019
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
KOLKATA BENCH
KOLKATA
O.A. 350/00784/2019
M.A. 350/437/2019
DATE OF HEARING : 21.02.2024
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 05.03.2024
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Jayesh V. Bhairavia, Judicial Member
Hon'ble Mr. Suchitto Kumar Das, Administrative Member
In the matter of :
1. Shishupal Pramanik, aged about 30 years, son of Gour
Pramanik of village-Patki, PO Dahakanda, PS Mathurapur,
District-South 24 Parganas, State-West Bengal, Pin Code-
743354.
2. Sabyasachi Halder, aged about 33 years, son of Sibsankar
Halder of Village- Lakshmikantapur, PO Ghateswar, PS Mondir
Bazar, District- South 24 Parganas, State- West Bengal, Pin Code-
743336.
.............Applicants
VS.
1. Chairman, Ministry of Railways, Railway Recruitment
Board, Government of India, Rail Bhawan, 256, Raisina Road,
New Delhi-110001.
2. Railway Recruitment Board, Kolkata Metro Railways, A.V.
Complex, Chitpur, Opposite of R. G. Kar Medical College, R. G. Kar
Road, Kolkata-700037.
.........Respondents
For The Applicant(s): Mr. N. C. Bhandary, Counsel
For The Respondent(s): Mr. S. Chatterjee, Counsel
2 OA 784/2019
ORDER
Per: Hon'ble Suchitto Kumar Das, Administrative Member The applicants have approached this Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 praying for the following common relief:
"a) To direct the respondents to consider the number obtained by your applicants in the computer based test indulging their quota as OBC and unreserved accordingly.
b) To quash/set aside the decision of the concerned authorities of not taking into consideration of the candidature of your applicants.
c) To direct the respondents concerned to verify and transmit records of the case unto this Hon'ble Tribunal so that on perusal thereof conscionable justice may be administered.
d) To grant leave to move the instant application jointly under Sub Rule 5 of Rule 4 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987.
e) To pass such other or further order as deem fit and proper."
2. An M.A. bearing no. 350/00437/2019 has been filed by applicants praying for liberty to jointly pursue such original application.
On being satisfied that the applicants share a common grievance and are pursuing a common cause of action, such liberty is granted under Rule 4(5)(a) of CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987, subject to payment of individual court fees.
M.A. 350/00437/2019 is accordingly disposed of.
3. For the sake of clarity, facts in the case are delineated and discussed hereinunder :-
3.1 Petitioners herein applied for Level-I posts in terms of vacancy notice CEN no. 02/2018 published by the Railways. Both the applicants opted to make the applications to Railway Recruitment Board (RRB), Kolkata. They appeared in the Computer Based Test (CBT) at Bhubaneshwar on 16.11.2018 3 OA 784/2019 and 12.11.2018 respectively and secured normalized scores of 43.61157 and 40.81995 respectively. They were not called for the next phase of selection, i.e., Physical Endurance Test (PET) and Document Verification (DV) on the ground that their normalized scores were below the cut off marks. Aggrieved by the decision not to call them for PET, the applicants preferred representations to the authorities on 22.04.2019 and filed this OA on 14.08.2019.
3.2 In the OA, the applicants have submitted that as per the Employment Notice, the qualifying marks for General candidates was 40% and for OBC candidates it was 30%. Since both the applicants scored more than 40%, they ought to have been called for PET and DV. Applicants further submit as per information collected by them that some candidates had been awarded normalized scores of more than 100 whereas the maximum marks in the examination was 100. The applicants also submit that some candidates who had scored lower scores than them were called for PET. The applicants submit that the discrepancies noted above point to serious irregularities and discrimination in the selection process which is liable to be quashed and set aside.
4. During hearing, and in his written notes of argument, Learned Counsel for the applicant in addition to the alleged irregularities pointed out in the OA, draws attention to various press reports about submission of fake certificates by many candidates who were offered appointments. He cites the order of the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta in Itisha Soren vs. The Union of India & Ors.
reported in WPA no. 22150 of 2023 by which the Hon'ble High Court has ordered the termination of candidature of a medical student who had obtained admission to a medical college on the basis of fake certificates and 4 OA 784/2019 allowed the petitioner in the case to be admitted against the resultant vacancy.
4.1 Learned Counsel for the applicants also refers to media reports pertaining to cancellation of appointment of some existing employees of Central Railway after 27 years of their appointment on the ground that they had obtained appointment on the basis of fake certificates. He concludes his oral submission by arguing that the irregularities in the selection process are serious enough to render the entire process unlawful and should be quashed. The Learned Counsel submits that alternatively, appointments of candidates with lower marks than obtained by the applicants should be terminated and the applicants should be granted appointment.
5. Per contra, Learned Counsel for the respondents, relying on the reply filed by the respondents, submits that the details of selection process were notified in the employment notice no. CEN 02/2018. The notice itself made it clear that the selection will be held separately by each RRB for the vacancies in their respective zones. The applicants were required to apply to only one RRB of their choice. Each RRB would then recruit to the extent of vacancies in different departments in their zones. The number of vacancies to be filled up by the various RRBs were different from each other. Performance of candidates opting for a particular RRB would also be different from that of the candidates applying to another RRB. For these reasons the cut off marks for candidates shortlisted for PET by one RRB will be different from those in another RRB. Learned Counsel for the respondents submits that all the candidates mentioned in the OA who have secured less score than the applicants had applied to RRBs other than the one in Kolkata. The comparison between the scores of the applicants and these candidates is unwarranted. 5 OA 784/2019 5.1 Learned Counsel for the respondents further submits that the employment notification had merely mentioned the minimum marks in each category. These minimum marks are the qualifying marks to be attained by a candidate in CBT to be eligible to be considered for further process of selection. A candidate obtaining more than the qualifying marks can in no way claim a right to be called for PET. Number of candidates called for PET is determined by the number of vacancies to be filled up by a particular RRB. Cut off marks for candidates to be called for PET by a particular RRB thus depends on the number of vacancies to be filled up by that RRB as well as the relative performances of candidates who have applied to that RRB. For these reasons the cut off marks which decide whether a candidate will be called for PET is different for each RRB. Learned Counsel further submits that in the case of RRB Kolkata the cut off normalized scores for General candidates were 80.57238 and for OBC candidates it was 71.77651. Since the applicants had secured less marks than the cut off, they were not called for PET. 5.2 Respondents submit that in order to accommodate large number of candidates (1.54 crores for CEN no. 02/2018), the CBT had to be conducted over several sessions. Level of difficulty of questions is likely to vary across sessions. In order to provide a level playing field to all candidates the raw marks obtained by each candidates is put through a normalization process involving standard deviation in marks obtained by candidates in each session. The formula adopted for normalization is completely mathematical and is devoid of any human intervention. This formula may result in some candidates getting normalized scores of more than 100. Learned Counsel for the respondents avers that the submissions made on behalf of the 6 OA 784/2019 respondents make it clear that there is no merit in the OA which should be outrightly dismissed.
6. Heard the parties at length. Perused materials on record. 6.1 The case of the applicants rests on the following arguments :-
(i) Applicants having secured more than the minimum marks specified in the notification should have been short listed for PET and DV.
(ii) Since candidates with lower score than those of the applicants have been short listed for PET, the applicants had a right to be called for PET.
(iii) Awarding a normalized score of more than 100 to some candidates when the maximum marks were 100 reveals serious irregularity in the entire process of selection.
Additional submissions of the Learned Counsel for the applicants during oral argument and in his written notes of arguments about vitiation of appointment process by the submission of fake certificates is not supported by any tangible evidence in the instant case and is considered irrelevant as far as this OA is concerned.
6.2 Relevant extracts from the Employment Notice no. CEN 02/2018 are
quoted below :- (emphasis supplied)
"(B) Important Instruction 3.
Candidates are required to go through the vacancy table, ascertain their eligibility and then exercise options for the RRBs and post(s) within the RRB chosen as per their eligibility. The selection of RRB once exercised shall be final.
Xxxxxxxxxxx (F) Item 15.0 : HOW TO APPLY Candidates can apply for vacancies of any one RRB only through ONLINE application mode by visiting the official website of RRBs listed at para 20.0." 7 OA 784/2019 It is amply clear from above that the selection process is specific to each RRB. Comparison between the performances of different RRBs is unwarranted and odious. As rightly pointed by the Learned Counsel for the respondents, cut off marks for determining the eligibility of candidates to be called for PET will vary across RRBs depending on the number of vacancies to be filled up by a particular RRB and the relative performances of the candidates applying to that RRB. We see no merit in applicants' contention that they have been discriminated against vis-à-vis candidates referred to by them in their OA. 6.3 Item 14.1 of the of the Employment Notice states as under :
"Minimum percentage of marks for eligibility in various categories : UR-40%, OBC- 30%, SC-30%, ST-30%."
Minimum marks by definition means qualifying marks to be obtained by a candidate to be eligible to be considered for the next step of selection process. In a scenario where the number of candidates securing more than the qualifying marks exceeds the number of vacancies by several multiples and the number to be called for PET is restricted to two or three times the number of vacancies, it is but natural that the cut off marks will be higher than the qualifying marks. The applicants admittedly secured normalised scores of 43.61157 and 40.81995 respectively which are below the cut off normalised scores of 80.57238 for General and 71.77651 for OBC candidates appearing through RRB Kolkata. They were, therefore, rightly not short listed for PET. 6.4 Important Instruction 7 of the Employment Notice states as follows :
"..........Marks will be normalized in the CBT."
The fact that the raw marks obtained by the candidates in the CBT would be normalized was made known to the candidates through the 8 OA 784/2019 employment notification. Justification for undertaking normalization of raw marks and the mathematical formula for normalizing the raw scores were posted in the respondents' website on 08.03.2019 for the information of the candidates in great detail. It has been made clear by way of examples that scores of more than 100 may be awarded in the process of such normalization. The applicant's contention that securing a normalized score of more than 100 indicates serious irregularities in the selection process is therefore, without any merit.
6.5 In our opinion, the respondents have scrupulously adhered to the selection process as laid down in the Employment Notification maintaining complete transparency in the matter. The applicants on the other hand have miserably failed to prove their case. We find no legal infirmity in the impugned selection process.
7. OA stands dismissed being devoid of merit.
MA no. 350/437/2019 stands disposed of as per para 2 of this order. No order as to costs.
(Suchitto Kumar Das) (Jayesh V. Bhairavia) Administrative Member Judicial Member sl