AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
ORDER
Per: Justice M.G. Sewlikar, Member (J)
Respondent nos. 1 & 2 have filed this application for vacation of interim relief.
Facts in short are that 26 applicants have filed this OA on 02nd January, 2023 seeking the relief of quashing and setting aside the order dated 27th December, 2022 (Annexure- A-1) whereby the panel declared on 26th July, 2022 has been cancelled and to restore Select Panel dated 26th July, 2022.
Facts leading to this application are that the applicants were appointed in the Central Railway in the initial grades i.e. GP Rs.1800 or 1900 on various posts. They are employees of Matunga Workshop of Central Railway.
The respondents issued a Selection Notification on 10th February, 2022 for formation of Panel for the post of JE (Junior Engineer), Level 6 (7th Central Pay Commission) in various trades against 25% Ranker Quota, Matunga Workshop (Mechanical Department).
The applicants, being eligible to the post of Junior Engineer, applied pursuant to the said notification dated 10th February, 2022 (Annexure- A-4) for selection.
Written test was conducted on 06th May, 2022, in which applicants appeared. On 27th June, 2022, result of written test was declared and the applicants were declared successful and qualified in the said written test vide Annexure- A-7.
Respondents issued a Select Panel on 26th July, 2022 which was in the Order of Merit vide Annexure- A-8. On 03rd August, 2022, the said panel dated 26th July, 2022 (Annexure-A-8) was operated and the applicants were sent for training at Chief Instructor Basic Training Centre (CIBTC), Matunga Workshop, Mumbai. The applicnats reported for the said training on 04th August, 2022 at 07 Central Administrative TribunalAM and written test was conducted till 4:00 pm. On 04th August, 2022, the respondents issued a notification (Annexure-A-9) vide which training was postponed till further orders. The said training was postponed and the respondents were in the process of revaluation of the answer sheets which was completed and on 22nd September, 2022, the modified and revised results were declared. The applicants were notified as passed.
The respondents did not take any action with regard to recommencement of the training and, therefore, the applicants made a representation dated 13th October, 2022 which was followed by another representation dated 14th October, 2022 vide Annexure- A-18. The applicants made another representation on 25th November, 2022 vide Annexure- A-11.
It is further alleged that the respondents in an arbitrary manner passed the impugned order dated 27th December, 2022 vide which the panel dated 26th July, 2022 (Annexure- A-8) was cancelled and notified that a fresh written test will be conducted on 12th January, 2023.
The applicants allege that they have passed the entire selection process and panel was also declared which was operated by sending the applicants for training. Thus, their right has fructified in so far as promotion to the post of Junior Engineer (JE) is concerned and the respondents could not have without assigning any reason cancelled the said panel.
It is the contention of the applicants that after declaration of the panel, the respondents cannot cancel the selection process arbitrarily without assigning any reason.
Hence, the applicants filed this OA seeking following reliefs:-
“a)This Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to call for the records which led the passing of the impugned Order dated 27.12.2022 i.e. Annexure "A1" and after going through its propriety, legality and constitutional validity be pleased to quash and set aside the same with all consequential benefits.
b)This Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to hold and declare that the impugned act of the Respondents is illegal, arbitrary and bad-in-law and accordingly order and direct the Respondents to restore the Select Panel dated 26.7.2022 i.e. Annexure "A2" and allow the Applicants to resume, participate and continue with their training which began on 4.8.2022.
(b)Any other and further orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit, proper and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case.
(e)Cost of this Original Application be provided for.”
This Tribunal vide order dated 04th January, 2023 granted interim relief in following terms:-
“Heard Shri Walia, learned counsel for the applicants.
The applicants were working as Technicians in various trades in Matunga Workshop at Central Railway and basically belong to the Mechanical Department. On 10.02.2022, the respondents issued a Selection Notification for formation of panel for the posts of Junior Engineer, Level-6 (7th Central Pay Commission) in various trades against 25% Ranker Quota. The applicants being eligible applied for the said posts. The applicants' names also figured in the eligibility list of Selection Notification dated 10.02.2022. Thereafter, the respondents conducted the written test on 06.05.2022 and applicants were declared successful and qualified on 27.06.2022. After completion of the assessment of service record, the respondents issued a Select Panel vide order dated 26.07.2022 and the names of the applicants are also reflected in the select panel. In pursuant of the selection, they were sent for the training at Chief Instructor Basic Training Centre (CIBTC), Matunga Workshop, Central Railway, Mumbai. Thereafter, on 04.08.2022, the applicants reported for the said training at CIBTC at 07.00 AM and training was conducted till 04:00 PM. However, without any reason, the said training was postponed till further orders. The reason for postponement of the said training came to the applicants' knowledge that the respondents wanted to conduct revaluation of the answer sheets. Thereafter, on 22.09.2022, the respondents completed the process of revaluation of the answer sheets and declared the modified and revised results and the applicants were again notified as passed. Despite above, the respondents passed impugned order dated 27.12.2022 and Central Administrative Tribunalthereby the entire process for selection panel was cancelled and a fresh written test was directed to be conducted on 12.01.2023. No reasons are given in support of cancelling the panel and the case of the applicants is that they having been selected and sent for training and once panel was operated, the respondents could not have cancelled the selection process. We prima facie find substance in the submissions of the learned counsel for the applicants. We, therefore, issue notice to the respondents. Notices made returnable on 25.01.2023.
Shri Walia, learned counsel for the applicants, at this stage, presses for grant of interim relief. He submits that the respondents have decided to hold fresh examination to prepare the said panel on 12.01.2023 and if the exam is conducted, the present application would become infructuous. We prima facie agree with the submissions and, therefore, by way of interim relief, we direct the respondents to postpone the written test which is scheduled on 12.01.2023 till further date.
Dasti service is allowed.”
Respondents filed their reply. In reply, the respondents contend that one Vivek Vilas Dandavate, Sr. Technician (Mill Wright) of M&P Section, an unsuccessful candidate, made a representation on 04th August, 2022 (Annexure- R-1) stating that the answer mentioned in the answer key for four questions viz Q. No. 6, 19, 38 & 61 are wrong and hence his answer sheet has been wrongly evaluated due to which he got 5.33 marks less, else he could have scored 64 marks.
Central Administrative Tribunal4.1 Another candidate, Shri Pravin D. Araj, Sr. Tech (Trimmer) of CF-VIII Shop made a representation on 30th August, 2022 in which he contended that the answer mentioned in the answer key five questions viz Q.No. 19, 68, 69, 88 & 108 are wrong.
Another candidate, Shri Vantipur Kishor Thimappa, Fitter of EMU-TR made representation dated 24th September, 2022 in which he stated that question no. 43 is not evaluated in answer sheet. Shri Alok Kumar Singh, Sr. Tech (Trimmer) of Trimming Shop made a representation dated 27th September, 2022 in which he raised doubts regarding question nos. 34, 51, 81, 107 & 110.
The Railway Board issued guidelines vide letter dated 19th May, 2022 with regard to the procedure to be adopted for evaluation in Departmental selections based on multiple choice objective questions.
Respondents further contend that as per Railway Board’s letter dated 09th June, 2011, wherever any question(s) in the question paper(s) is found incorrect, the questions may be omitted from the scope of evaluation instead of giving grace mark(s) and raw score may be assessed on percentage basis. On the basis of this guideline, it was decided that question paper setting authority to go through the entire question paper set and also the answer key and if any question or the answer in the answer key was found to be incorrect, the said questions be omitted from the scope of evaluation vide office letter dated 06th August, 2022 (Annexure-R-4).
It is further alleged that as per these instructions, the entire question paper and the answer key were reviewed and it was found that for some questions either the question is wrong or the answer key was wrong and, therefore, following questions were decided to be omitted:-
| Part A | Q. No. 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 19,26,33,36,38,50 and 51 | |
| Part B | Trimmer | Q. No. 81 |
| Smithy | Q. No. 100 | |
| Carpentry | Q. No. 61 & 73 | |
| Mill Wright | Q. No. 61 & 83 | |
| Fitter | Q. No. 110 | |
Accordingly, revaluation was done and the revised Central Administrative Tribunalresult of the written test was declared vide letter dated 22nd September, 2022.
It is further alleged that in case of Shri Pravin D. Araj, Question Paper Setting Authority advised thus:-
i)Q.19 already omitted while reviewing.
ii) Q.68, answer C is right.
iii) Q.69, answer B is correct.
iv) For Q.88, Both option A and C are correct.
v)Q.108, option C is correct.
Accordingly, Q.88 and 108 were omitted.
Because of these discrepancies in the key answers, CWM instructed for cancellation of the Panel and a fresh written test. Because of these irregularities in the conduct of examination, it was difficult to ascertain the credibility of the marks obtained by the candidates. Since there was no feasible solution to this problem, the cancellation of the entire selection process was the only viable option. They have, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the application.
Central Administrative Tribunal5. The respondents filed application for vacation of interim relief.
Applicants did not file reply to application for vacation of interim relief.
We have heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned counsel for the respondents.
Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the official respondents filed affidavit in reply within 20 days since the matter was extremely urgent for Chief Workshop Manager (CWM), Carriage Workshop, Matunga, Mumbai where the repairing and maintenance of railway coaches are done. The private respondents were not impleaded at all. About 07 affected employees had filed MA No. 1110/2023 for intervention/for impleadment as party respondents. This MA was withdrawn with liberty by Advocate Samir Singh. Thereafter, affected parties have filed fresh MA on 10th January, 2024.
Learned counsel for the respondents further contended that the Matunga Workshop is the main Central Administrative Tribunalrepair and maintenance workshop of Central Railway and plays a key role in the timely operation of local trains as well as passenger trains by providing timely turnouts of coaches. The post of Junior Engineer is highly sensitive and crucial for proper maintenance of train coaches and running train operations. If the applicants succeed in the OA, they can always be granted service benefits but miseries of the railway commuters cannot be removed by this Tribunal retrospectively. Due to ex parte order passed by this Tribunal, many vacancies in Junior Engineer category adversely affect the safety of passengers. In these peculiar circumstances, respondents have filed this application for vacation of interim stay.
Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the respondents have not assigned any reason for cancellation of the panel declared on 26th July, 2022. Law is clear on this issue that if selection process is to be cancelled, reasons have to be assigned. The impugned order has not assigned any reason. He has, therefore, prayed for rejection of the application for Central Administrative Tribunalvacation of interim relief. He has placed reliance on the case of Ajay Anthony Francis & Anr. versus Union of India & Ors. in OA No. 552/2025 dated 02nd April, 2026 (CAT, Mumbai Bench).
We have given thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for their respective parties.
At the outset, we would like to mention that reply to the application for vacation of interim stay is not filed. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that he has explained the reasons in the OA itself and, therefore, no reply is necessary.
Just because reply is not filed, does not mean that his right to oppose the application is taken away and he cannot argue on the merits of the application. He has right to demonstrate as to how the party seeking relief is not entitled to it. For this purpose, useful reference can be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ranjit Singh & Anr. versus State Central Administrative Tribunalof Uttarakhand & Ors. in Civil Appeal No. 2394/2023 dated 12th September, 2024 in which it is held as under:-
“5.…..At this stage, we must clarify the legal position. Even if a defendant does not file a written statement and the suit is ordered to proceed ex parte against him, the limited defence available to the defendant is not foreclosed. A defendant can always cross-examine the witnesses examined by the plaintiff to prove the falsity of the plaintiff’s case. A defendant can always urge, based on the plaint and the evidence of the plaintiff, that the suit was barred by a statute such as the law of limitation. Therefore, notwithstanding an order passed earlier to proceed ex parte, while deciding an application for striking out the defence, it was the duty of the Court to give an opportunity of being heard to the defendants….”
From this decision of the Supreme Court, it is clear that even if reply is not filed, the other party has right to contest the application.
It is not disputed that the applicants were eligible for the post of Junior Engineer against 25% Ranker Quota. They had appeared for the examination and their names also figured in the eligibility list of Selection Panel dated 10th February, 2022. In the written test held on 06th May, 2022, the applicants were Central Administrative Tribunaldeclared successful and qualified on 27th June, 2022. After completion of assessment of service record, the respondents issued a select panel vide order dated 26th July, 2022 in which the names of the applicants are reflected. The applicants were also sent for training at CIBTC, Matunga Workshop, Mumbai. The applicants reported for the said training on 04th August, 2022 at 07:00 am and the training was conducted till 04:00 pm. The training was postponed without assigning any reason. Revaluation of the answer sheet was done in which the applicants were again declared successful. Thereafter, the respondents passed the impugned order dated 27th December, 2022 in following terms:-
“CENTRAL RAILWAY Personnel Department, CWM’s Office, Matunga, Mumbai 19 No. MTN/EM/Con/JE 25% Ranker/10. Date 27.12.2022 All SSES Concerned (Mech.) Deptt, Matunga Workshop.
Sub:- Selection for the post of JE 25% Ranker quota in Level 6 in various trades of Mech. Deptt.
Ref:-This Office letter No. MTN/EM/Con/JE 25% Ranker/10 dtd 26.07.2022.
In connection with the above subject, the panel declared on 26/07/2022 for the post of JE 25% Level-6 against Ranker quota stands CANCELLED.
It has been decided by the competent authority to conduct written test afresh.
Fresh Written Test will now be held on 12.01.2023 (Thursday) at BTC(Mech.)/MTN at 11.00 hrs sharp.
sd/-(Geeta Krishnan) APO/MTN.”
From this order, it is clear that no reasons have been assigned by the competent authority for cancellation of the panel declared on 26th July, 2022 for the post of JE 25% Level-6 against Ranker Quota and fresh written test was ordered to be held on 12th January, 2023. The Administrative Authority can cancel the selection but it must assign reasons for doing the same. Cancellation of written examination without assigning any reason smacks of arbitrariness. It was held in the case of Ajay Anthony Francis (supra) as under:-
“23.In the case of East Coast Railway and Another versus Mahadev Appa Rao and Others,(supra), it has been held in para 23 and 26 thus: -
“23.Arbitrariness in the making of an order by an authority can manifest itself in different forms. Non-application of mind by Central Administrative Tribunalthe authority making the order is only one of them. Every order passed by a public authority must disclose due and proper application of mind by the person making the order. This may be evident from the order itself or the record contemporaneously maintained. Application of mind is best demonstrated by disclosure of mind by the authority making the order. And disclosure is best done by recording the reasons that led the authority to pass the order in question. Absence of reasons either in the order passed by the authority or in the record contemporaneously maintained is clearly suggestive of the order being arbitrary hence legally unsustainable.
26.If a test is cancelled just because some complaints against the same have been made howsoever frivolous, it may lead to a situation where no selection process can be finalised as those who fail to qualify can always make a grievance against the test or its fairness. What is important is that once a complaint or representation is received the competent authority applies its mind to the same and records reasons why in its opinion it is necessary to cancel the examination in the interest of purity of the selection process or with a view to preventing injustice or prejudice to those who have appeared in the same. That is precisely what had happened in Dilbagh Singh case. The examination was cancelled upon an inquiry into the allegations of unjust, arbitrary and dubious selection list prepared by the Selection Board in which the allegations were found to be correct.” 24. From para 23 and 26, it is clear that arbitrariness in the making of an order by an authority can manifest itself in different forms. One of which is non-application of mind by the authority passing the order. It has further held in para 26 that what is important is that once a complaint or representation is received, the competent authority must apply its mind to the same and record reasons why in Central Administrative Tribunalits opinion it is necessary to cancel the examination in the interest of purity of the selection process or with a view to preventing injustice or prejudice to those who have appeared in the same.”
From decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of East Coast Railway and Anr. versus Mahadev Appa Rao and Others, (2010) 7 SCC 678, it is clear that every order passed by competent authority must disclose due and proper application of mind. Application of mind is best demonstrated by disclosure of mind by the authority making the order. The aforesaid order clearly shows that the order is passed without application of mind. Moreover, the applicants were declared successful and they were undergoing training. In these circumstances, we find no merit in the application for vacation of interim relief. Hence, it is dismissed with no order as to costs.
Stand over to 28th October, 2026.
Interim relief to continue till then.