Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Per : Mr.K.V.EAPEN, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER The applicant filed this OA in March, 2019 seeking relief as follows:

"I) To call for the records leading to Annexure A-1 and set aside the same to the extent of non inclusion of the applicant and the inclusion of the ineligible candidates who scored lesser marks than the applicant. II) Direct the respondents 1 to 3 to re-evaluate the answer script of the applicant and award marks.
III) Declare that the applicant is entitled to be included in the select list for the post of Junior Engineer.

6. The Applicant submits that if she was awarded her rightly due 79 marks it would be clear from a perusal of Annexure A4 that she has got more marks than the respondent Nos. 9 & 10, who are among the selected candidates at Annexure A1 impugned order. She also submits that Annexure A1 impugned order is also coloured by the fact that though the vacancies are for 5 UR plus 1 SC, the candidates selected are 2 UR and 4 SC.

7. Per contra, respondents Nos. 1-4 (the official respondents) have replied stating that the applicant had submitted a representation vide Annexure A8 before respondent No. 3 pointing out the discrepancies in awarding marks and requesting for a re-evaluation to include her in the panel. The applicant claims that the 3rd respondent has not acted on the same and the selected candidates have been sent for training. The respondents submit that Annexure A8 representation dated 7.3.2019 does not consist of the endorsement of forwarding the representation by the immediate superior, nor is there an acknowledgement of receipt /dispatch section of the office of respondent No. 3. The applicant has submitted the said representation directly to respondent No. 3 without getting it forwarded by her immediate supervisor which is against the official procedure. The respondents submit that the said representation has been forwarded by them to the officer concerned who had valued the paper. Without waiting for an outcome on the representation dated 7.3.2019, the OA had been filed. The applicant has been deputed for training (vide letter dated 16.4.2019) as per the interim order dated 5.4.2019 of this Tribunal along with the selected candidates. It is submitted that on the date of filing of the OA no selected candidates were deputed for training unlike what has been mentioned in the application. The respondents also submit that respondent No. 3 had published the result based on the marks given by the officer concerned who had valued the script. In this regard, it is submitted that respondent No. 3 has no authority to order for revaluation of answer scripts and that no provision exists in the Railway Manual to re-evaluate the answer scripts upon receiving any complaint. Further, the Respondents have explained that the appointment of 4 SC candidates against the vacancies occurred because the selected SC candidates at serial Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 6 secured 81, 80, 79 and 76 marks respectively, whereas the unreserved candidate at serial No. 5 secured only 74 marks. As such, since there is no legal provision which restricts appointing SC candidates against general quota when selection is on merit, the applicant should not have any qualm regarding the selection and Annexure A1 panel list cannot be said to be illegal or non-est.