AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
(As per Hon’ble Mr. Manish Garg, Judicial Member)
In the instant OA, the applicant is seeking the following relief:
“(i)to call for the records pertaining to issuance of impugned proceedings dated 10.08.2026 & 31.08.2026 issued by Respondent No.3 and quash and set aside the same and direct the Respondent authorities to issue a revised panel incorporating the name of the Applicant after adding marks to which the Applicant is entitled:
(ii)to declare the action of selecting the Respondent No.8 & 9, who belong to SC Community against notified UR vacancies for promotion to the Group-B post of Assistant Health Officer;
(iii)and pass such other order or orders as this Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”
The brief facts of the case are that the Applicant herein was appointed in South Central Railway on 26.05.2000 as Health & Malaria Inspector in GP Rs.4200/-in South Central Railway. Subsequently, he progressed in his career and presently working as CH & MI in GP Rs.4800/- since the year 2020 onwards. While working as such, he appeared for selection for Group-B post of Assistant Health Officer in Level-8 of 7th CPC pay matrix in medical department. The said selection was held for formation of Group-B panel for 03 UR vacancies for the post of AHO. He appeared for the selection along with the 11 other candidates, vide proceedings dated 16.04.2026. It was indicated in the said proceedings that 02 candidates belongs to SC Community. A viva-voce was held, vide proceedings dated 03.08.2026, and 08 candidates working as CH & MI, appeared for the said viva-voce for selection to the Group-B post of AHO. A panel No.444 of 2026, dated 10.08.2026, was issued by the PCPO/SCR, declaring the names of 03 candidates in the panel. In the said panel Sri V. Hari Kishan, who is junior to the Applicant, was placed against OUTSTANDING grading. Sri G.V. Hanumantha Rao was placed at Sl.No.2 and subsequently retired on 31.08.2026, on attaining the age of superannuation. The name of Sri K. Siva Raju, who belongs to SC community, was placed at Sl.No.3 against UR vacancy, which is against the policy of reservation in promotion. In the said proceedings dated 10.08.2026, a proposal for extended panel has also been incorporated, in which the name of Sri Suresh Chand Bairwa (SC) was indicated as a proposal for replacement in place of Sri G.V. Hanumantha Rao, who was to retire on 31.08.2026. At this juncture, it is once again submitted that Sri Suresh Chand Bairwa, being SC candidate, and also being the junior most, cannot be promoted against UR vacancy in view of Rules of reservations in promotion.
The applicant has further submitted that his name did not figure in the panel. Therefore, he had sought information under RTI and the information was provided by the PCPO Office/SCR/SC vide proceedings dated 25.08.2026. From the information, according to the applicant, the his answers for the Q.Nos. 14, 15, 16 & 18, were marked as wrong even though the answers are correct and the options marked in the OMR sheet are tallying with the options provided in the Answer Key. After adding the results of 04 correct answers, his score will be 84 instead of 78.7, as mentioned in the OMR Sheet. He secured 24.60 towards record of service and 16 marks in viva-voce. Thus, his total marks will be 124.60, and as a result, he gets above 80% and had to be graded as OUTSTANDING". Since Sri V. Hari Kishan, who is placed at OUTSTANDING in the panel dated 10.08.2026, is junior to him, he should be placed below him as the final panel has to be drawn as per the seniority as indicated on page-3 of the proceedings dated 16.04.2026.
The applicant has contended that on noticing this irregular awarding of marks, he submitted a representation dated 07.09.2026 to the Respondents to issue a revised panel incorporating the name of the Applicant. Meanwhile, the Respondents issued the impugned proceedings dated 31.08.2026, ordering promotions of Sri Suresh Chand Bairwa (SC). At this juncture, the notification was issued to fill up 03 UR vacancies only. However, the Respondents irregularly empanelled Sri K. Siva Raju (SC) at Sl.No.3 in the panel against UR vacancy. Further, in the extended panel Sri Suresh Chand Bairwa (SC) was also proposed against UR vacancy which is contrary to the Railway Board Rules, and law laid down by various Courts and Hon'ble Apex Court.
The applicant has, therefore, contended that in view of erroneous awarding of marks, he was not empanelled for promotion although he is securing outstanding marks and ranking No.1 in the panel as per the panel seniority to which he is entitled. His non-empanelment for promotion to the post of AHO, as he is becoming senior most among UR candidates in the panel and also empanelment of SC candidates against the UR vacancies, is against the Railway Board Rules and law laid down by various Courts.
Heard Mr.K.Altaf Hussain, learned counsel for the Applicant and Mrs.M.Swarna, learned Standing Counsel for the Respondents.
The learned counsel for the applicant submits that as per the RTI information and the answer key provided to the applicant, if the OMR sheet is to be co-related with the answer key provided by the applicant, he will secure more marks than the one Sri suresh chand Bairwa (SC), who is sought to be replaced in the panel, vide communication dated 25.08.2026. To that effect, he has made a representation dated 07.09.2026, which reads as under:
"On evaluation of my OMR Sheet with the Key Provided to us surprisingly, I have noticed that Question nos. 14, 15, 16 & 18 were marked as wrong even though the answers are correct and the options marked in the OMR Sheet are tallying with the Options provided in the answer key resulting in difference of 4 correct answers thus my score will be 84 instead of 78.7 as mentioned in the OMR Sheet. Hence you are requested to correct the question nos. 14, 15, 16 & 18 marked as wrong in my OMR Sheet and extend the consequential benefits to me basing on the revised score duly reviewing the extended Panel at the earliest please. For which act of kindness I shall be ever grateful to you Sir.”
It is fairly considered that the said representation is pending consideration. At this stage, the learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant will be satisfied if the OA is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to dispose of the pending representation within a time bound manner by the competent authority by re-valuation and re-assessing the applicant’s marks vis-à-vis answer key provided by the applicant.
The learned counsel for the Respondents submits that Sri Suresh Chand Bairwa, is yet to be relieved.
Be that as it may, learned counsel for the Respondents seeks time to get appropriate instructions in the matter. However, considering the prayer so made, we deem it proper to direct the respondents to dispose of the pending representation of the applicant by affording him an opportunity of hearing within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till such time, the private respondent no.9 viz., Sri Suresh Chand Bairwa, shall not be allowed to join the post in question. It is also contended that the applicant is deprived of his legitimate right as against the private respondent, who is his junior as well as who is supposed to be an SC candidate, in terms of vacancy was notified.
Without going into the merits of the case, we dispose of this OA, at the admission stage, with a direction to the respondents to dispose of the pending representation of the applicant by affording him an opportunity of hearing within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till such time, the private respondent no.9 viz., Sri Suresh Chand Bairwa, shall not be allowed to join the post in question. Pending MAs, if any, also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.