Union Of India And Ors vs Narendra Kumar Chandel

Union of India has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 16.10.2019 passed by the Central

Administrative Tribunal, whereby, Original Application filed by the respondent, was allowed.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the Tribunal has acted beyond its jurisdiction while allowing another opportunity to the

respondent to take the retention test. Respondent had taken the test on three occasions and had failed the test. There was no justification to grant

another opportunity to the respondent to clear the retention test.

Facts of the case, in brief, are that respondent was appointed as a Trainee Section Engineer (Electrical) by the petitioners vide letter dated 17.03.2008

and thereafter respondent was sent for training vide order dated 18.08.2008. Respondent completed fifty two weeks of training and thereafter he was

required to pass the retention test before he could be appointed on regular basis. Respondent was declared to have failed in the retention test vide

letter dated 30.10.2009. Respondent was served with a show cause notice dated 29.06.2010 alleging that he had suppressed the information regarding

pendency of a criminal case against him and vide order dated 7.9.2010 services of the respondent were terminated. Respondent preferred O.A. No.

97/2012 and the same was allowed vide order dated 27.08.2012 and respondent was reinstated in service as Trainee Section Engineer (Electrical).

Thereafter, respondent failed to clear the retention test and his services were terminated vide order dated 3.5.2013. Respondent filed an Original

Application before the Tribunal seeking a direction to the petitioners to conduct one more retention test after giving sufficient time to him to prepare

for the same. The said O.A. No. 710/2013 was allowed vide order dated 18.04.2017.

The operative part of the order dated 18.04.2017 reads as under:-

We also direct that examination will be given in the presence of some senior officers. If applicant passes the retain test with 60% marks then he will

be granted benefit otherwise he loses. Therefore we will fix a date with the consent of both the parties i.e. on 02/05/2017 at 10:30 AM at Division

Office, Kota and applicant will be ready to face the examination on that day. Examination will be given by the applicant in the presence of some senior

officers and the result will be published as early as possible but within two weeks thereafter. Applicant requests that the question paper formation

must be as provided by the Railway Board circular. It is to be so.

Thereafter, respondent again appeared for the retention test but he failed to clear the said test and information was given to the respondent by the

petitioners in this regard vide letter dated 15.05.2017. Hence, the Original Application-in- question was filed by the respondent.

It was the case of the respondent that the retention test had not been held in terms of the circular issued by the Railway Board dated 10.07.2003. As

per the said circular 70% marks were to be allotted for objective type questions, whereas, respondent was made to answer objective type questions to

the extent of 50 marks out of total 100 marks. Learned Tribunal while relying on the circular held that the question paper had not been framed by the

petitioners in terms of their own circular dated 10.07.2003. While framing question paper, seventy marks should have been allotted to objective type

questions out of hundred marks, whereas, in the question paper which was placed on record, only fifty marks had been allotted to objective type

questions. Learned Tribunal, thus, rightly came to the conclusion that the respondent was liable to be granted one more opportunity to enable him to

appear in the retention test as the question paper had not been framed by the petitioners in terms of their own circular.

In the facts and circumstances of the present case, learned Tribunal while exercising its jurisdiction has rightly granted opportunity to the respondent to

appear in a fresh retention test liable to be held by the petitioners.

Hence, no ground for interference by this court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is made out.

Dismissed.