Central Administrative Tribunal - Kolkata
Pratap Biswas vs Eastern Railway on 9 February, 2022
a a 1 0.A. 432/2019 CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL a eee an ee KOLKATA BENCH, KOLKATA 9 Tn gsnery fk FN |
0.A/350/00432/2019 " i Date of Order: 09.02.2022 Coram: Hon'ble Ms. Bidisha Banerjee, Judicial Member , y Hon'ble Dr. (Ms.) Nandita Chatterjee, Administrative Member In the matter of:
Pratap Biswas, son of Sukumar Biswas, residing at: Village and Post Office-Tarak Nagar, Police Station-Krishnaganj, District-
Nadia, Pin-741502.
_neense Applicant . -Versus-
i. UNION OF INDIA, through the General "Manager, Eastern Railway, Fairlye Place, 7 Kolkata-700001. ST _ ii. The Chairman, Railway Recruitment Cell, Eastern Railway, 56, CR Avenue, Kolkata~ 700012, | = viii, The Senior Personal " Officer, | Recruitment, Railway Recruitment Cell, 56, CR Avenue, Kolkata-700012. -
eae Respondents For The Applicant(s): Mr. B. Banerjee, Counsel For The Respondent(s): Mr. N. D. Bandyopadhyay, Counsel te Moto ad 2 ; 0.A. 432/2019 ORDER@ORALD Per: Hon'ble Dr. (Ms.) Nandita Chatterjee, Administrative Member L. Aggrieved at not having been appointed pursuant to employment notice no. 0112 of 2012, the applicant has approached this Tribunal praying for the following relief :-
"a) A direction directing the respondent authorities to quash and/or cancel and/or rescind and/or set aside and/or withdraw the Speaking Order vide memo no. RRC/ER/OA/35/00565/2018 , (0112), Kolkata dated 24.10.2018. .
b) A direction directing the respondent authorities to give appointment in the basis of the empanelied status of the candidates not prepared any final panel pursuant to employment notice 0112 cannot be tenable in the eye of law and 'therefore the same may be quash and/or cancel and/or rescind and/or set aside and/or withdrawn.
c) A direction directing the respondent authorities to forthwith allot the petitioner with 6.66 marks in accordance with law.
d) A direction directing the respondent authorities to forthwith reassess and/or re-evaluate the OMR sheet of the applicant and award full marks to question no. 1,5,6,53,96 in 2 shift in the selection process initiated by Employment Notice No, 0112 'dated 16" August 2012 and to follow consequential steps for recruitment.
e) A direction directing the respondent authorities to forthwith reassess the answer script of your applicant and revisit the panel _ of selected candidates pursuant to the employment notice being no. 0112-dated 16" August, 2012.
FY A direction directing the respondent authorities to forthwith appoint your applicant to the post of Grade-D pursuant to the employment notice being no. 0112 dated 16" August 2012.
g)'A direction directing the respondent quthorities to transmit all records pertaining to this case so that conscionable justice may be administered to your applicant.
h) Any other and/or orders relief as your Lordship may deem fit and proper.
i) An order do issue directing the respondents to call the applicant to appear in the medical test for appointment, in Group-D post of as he was declared suitable in the written test and the PET and then prepared the panel on the basis of merit.
j) An order does issue directing the respondents to prepare final . panel after conducting medical test. -- :
k) Leave may be grant to file this Original Application jointly _ under Rule 4(5) of the CAT Procedure Rule, 1987."3 (OA. 4382/2019
2. Heard Learned Counsel for both the parties. Examined pleadings and documents on record.
3. Learned Counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant had. participated in a selection process pursuant to employment notice no. 0112 dated +. 16" August, 2012. And, that, the applicant had appeared in the written examination as well as the ohysical efficiency test, and, his documents were also verified in due course. Surprisingly, however, the applicant was not called to appear in the medical test.
The applicant, thereafter, approached the authorities to obtain a copy of the evaluated OMR sheet and answer key, as well as the details of marks obtained by him, but to no avail. In the meanwhile, while the concerned authority furnished the copy of OMR sheet to him, they refused to provide the answer key, | and; being highly aggrieved with the inaction: of the authorities in not providing the applicant 'with the marks obtained by him as well as answer key , in connection with employment notice no, 0112 of 2012, the applicant preferred a writ oetition bearing no. W.P. No. 3578(W) of 2016, and the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta granted him liberty to approach this Tribunal. The respondent authorities having informed him that, there is no provision for re-assessment/re-evaluation of the OMR sheet , and alleging that, 'there is a demonstrable error in the answer key to the OMR sheet, the applicant has approached this Tribunal to reiterate his claim for appointment 'and praying . for the.aforementioned relief. .
Learned Counsel! for the applicant would: also refer --
- to the answer . key, as well as the response sheet of _-- the bok,» 4 . O.A. 432/2019 applicant (annexed at Annexure-A/8 collectively to the OA) to claim that the applicant had been inaccurately evaluated in question no. 1, 5, 6, 53 and 96, that, the responses provided in the answer key to such questions are incorrect, and, | therefore, would urge that this Tribunal intervenes in this regard. 4, | The respondents would, however, dispute the claim of the applicant in their submissions that, the applicant has preferred different litigations in different judicial forum for the same cause of action which is not tenable in the eyes of law, and, that, there is no provision for re-evaluation of the results of the written examination, the results of which have been finalized long back. In this context, we would refer to the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court which states as follows :-
5. In UPSC Vs. Hiranyalal Deb (1988) 2 SCC 292, Hon'ble Apex Court ruled that it is the exclusive function of the Selection Committee to determine what norms 1 are to be applied in assessing the candidates.
In B.S. Minhas Vs. Indian Statistical Institute (1983) 4 SCC 582, and, in Dr. C. M. : Kapoor Vs. Chowdhury Charan Singh, Haryana Agriculture University, 2005 (6) _ SLR 228 (P&H-DB), the Hon'ble Courts held that no interference ' called for with regard to decisions of experts in the Selection Committee. 6, Accordingly, this Tribunal is of the considered view that the decision on the correctness of the answer key should be left to subject experts, and, would accordingly, direct the respondent authorities to set up a committee of subject experts who had not been part of the expert committee that had prepared the answer key in the selection process of 0112 of 2012. The Committee of newly engaged subject experts will decide on the accurate answers to the disputed hy
--
5 a O.A. 432/2019 ' questions bearing nos. 1, 5, 6, 53 and 96, and thereafter, arrive at their conclusion on the veracity of the answer key with respect to the disputed questions, and, advise the applicant accordingly through a reasoned order. The above exercise should be completed within 16 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
With these directions, the instant O.A. is disposed of. No costs, . * VW 4 .
(Dr. Nandita Chatterjee) (Bidisha Banerjee) Administrative Member Judicial Member sl 4