Resu Sreenu vs SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAY on 29 September 2026

ORDER

(As per Hon'ble Mr.Manish Garg, Member(J))

In the instant OA, the applicant seeks the following reliefs :- “….to call for the records pertaining to the Question Paper dated 04.07.2024 and syllabus prescribed for selection to the post of Chief Loco Inspector along with Letter No SC/LR6/294/2023/CLI/212831 dated 04.10.2024 and declare the action of SCR/P-SC/LR6/294/2023/CLI/212831, dated 04.10.2024 and declare the action of setting the Question Paper by including the questions relating to the subjects which are not part of Syllabus and proceeding further by declaring the result of the written examination as illegal and set aside and quash the Proceedings of written examination result issued vide letter dated 04.10.2024; and direct the respondent Railways to conduct the written examination again in pursuance to the Notification dated 21.07.2023 by setting the question paper strictly in accordance with the Syllabus notified for selection and grant all consequential benefits to the applicants…”

2. The facts in brief are that the O.A. has been filed challenging the question paper and the written examination result pertaining to the selection for the post of Chief Loco Inspector notified by the Secunderabad Division of South Central Railway. The principal grievance of the applicants is that 18 questions in the written examination were outside the prescribed syllabus and that five questions were subsequently treated as invalid, contrary to the final key wherein only two questions were declared invalid. 2.1 The learned counsel for the applicants submits that the notification prescribing the syllabus was issued on 21.07.2023 and the written examination was conducted on

Phone=

Location:

SREEDEVI

Page | 4

04.07.2024. The applicants submitted objections regarding the out-of-syllabus questions, which were also raised by the Organised Labour, along with objections regarding wrong answers. Despite the said objections, the respondents proceeded with the selection and declared the result. The applicants thereafter approached this Tribunal, wherein the selection was made subject to the outcome of the O.A. The respondents subsequently issued the select panel for 38 candidates, also subject to the final outcome of the O.A. 2.2 It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that the respondents have wrongly treated five questions as invalid instead of the two questions declared invalid in the final key. According to the applicants, the invalid questions ought to have been deleted and the evaluation conducted out of 98 questions rather than 95 questions. Such computation, according to them, has materially affected the merit position, particularly when the difference between the last selected candidate and the immediate unsuccessful candidate is only 0.59 marks. 2.3 The learned counsel for the applicants further submit that the respondents, having declared the final key dated 18.07.2024 as final, could not subsequently alter the basis of evaluation by treating additional questions as invalid. It is contended that such action compromises the transparency and sanctity of the merit-based selection process.

Phone=

Location:

SREEDEVI

Page | 5

2.4 The applicants, therefore, seek setting aside of the written examination result and re-finalisation of the result in accordance with the prescribed syllabus and final key, after deleting the out-of-syllabus questions and following a transparent procedure. In support of their submissions, reliance has been placed upon Railway Board Instruction RBE No. 35 of 2009 dated 07.02.2009, the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sachin Kumar and Others v. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board, (2021) 4 SCC 631, and the order of the Hon’ble CAT, Mumbai Bench in O.A. No. 552/2025 dated 02.04.2026. 2.5 Learned Counsel for the Applicants mainly submits that the departmental examination in question was conducted on 04.07.2024 pursuant to the notification, wherein a total of 43 posts of the nomenclature Chief Loco Inspector were advertised, and the examination was conducted in the form of Multiple Choice Questions (MCQs), in which 236 eligible candidates participated. It is submitted that 18 questions in the examination were out of syllabus, against which the Applicants preferred a representation on 06.07.2024. However, the said representation was rejected without due consideration of the issues raised therein. It is further submitted that the result of the examination was declared on 04.10.2024 and, despite the Applicants having raised a specific grievance regarding the inclusion of 18 out-of-syllabus questions, the authorities proceeded further with the selection process without properly considering and adjudicating upon the said representation.

Phone=

Location:

SREEDEVI

Page | 6

Learned Counsel further submits that the list of eligible candidates is available at Page 39 and the relevant examination notification is available at Page 32 of the record. It is contended that the grievance raised by the Applicant could not have been examined merely at the Zonal level, as the issue pertains to the scope and content of the departmental examination and falls within the domain of the Railway Board in terms of the applicable circulars and instructions. Accordingly, Learned Counsel for the Applicants submits that the case of the Applicants ought to be examined at the level of the Railway Board in accordance with the applicable circulars and instructions.

3. Per contra, Learned Counsel for the Respondents relies upon Paragraph 4.6 of the Reply and the grounds taken therein. It is submitted that the issues raised by the Applicants have been duly dealt with in the Reply, particularly in Paragraph 4.6, and the Respondents place reliance upon the syllabus and the grounds mentioned in the Reply in support of their stand. Para 4.6 is extracted as under : “It is respectfully submitted that the competent authority i.e question paper setter has clarified the following on examining the said representations as claimed by the applicants as under: T-18 and WAG12 locomotives related questions are included in syllabus vide Annexure-B (Point No.14 & 15) of notification of selection to the unified post of Chief Loco Inspector in Level-7 of 7th CPC Pay matrix in Loco Running Department of SC Division Dated: 21.07.2023. Thus, questions pertaining to above are within the syllabus content only. Remaining answers published in website stands good. Queries raised by different organisation/Staff (other than corrected questions) are hereby clarified.”

Phone=

Location:

SREEDEVI

Page | 7

4. In rejoinder, Learned Counsel for the Applicant draws the attention of the Tribunal to Paragraph 4 of the Rejoinder and reiterates the submissions made therein.

5. Heard learned counsel on both sides and perused the records and the written synopsis submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants.

6.

ANALYSIS

6.1 It is an admitted position that the questions and the syllabus are being challenged only by the applicants before us. No other person who participated in the examination has come forward to raise any grievance. It is also not in dispute that the examination was conducted on 04.07.2024. However, it has been contended that the results were declared without considering the representation submitted by the applicants and, as such, an opportunity of hearing was denied to them, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. 6.2 As held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in J.P. Kulshrestha`s case (1980) 3 SCC 418, ultimately, this Court has to leave it to the academic body to select the best candidates suitable and fit to teach the subject. "Rulings of this Court were cited before us to hammer home the point that the Court should not substitute its judgment for that the Court should not substitute its judgment for that of academicians when the dispute relates to educational affairs. While there is no absolute ban, it is a rule of prudence that courts should hesitate to dislodge decisions of academic bodies. But University ongans, for that matter any authority in our system, is bound by the rule of law and cannot be a law unto itself. If the Chancellor or any other

Phone=

Location:

SREEDEVI

Page | 8

authority lesser in level deciders an academic matter, or an educational question, the Court keeps its hands off; but where a provision of law has to be read and understood, it is not fair to keep the court out." In view of the above statement of law, with which we are in respectful agreement we hold that generally the Court may not interfere with the selection, relating to educational affairs, and academic matters may be left to the expert body to select best of the talent on objective criteria. What is the objective criteria is a question of fact in each case. Each case depends upon its own facts and the circumstances in which the respective claims of competing candidates has come up for consideration. No absolute rule in that behalf could be laid. Each case requires to be considered on its own merit and in its own setting, giving due consideration to the views expressed by the educational experts in the affairs of their administration or selection of the candidates.” 6.3 In Kanpur University case [Kanpur University v. Samir Gupta, (1983) 4 SCC 309], the Court recommended a system of :

(1) moderation;

(2) avoiding ambiguity in the questions;

(3) prompt decisions be taken to exclude suspected questions and no marks be assigned to such questions.” 6.4 In Sanchit Bansal & Anr vs Joint Admission Board & Ors decided on 11 October, 2011 (AIR 2012 SUPREME COURT 214, 2012 (1) SCC 157), the Hon’ble Apex Court observed:- “18. In Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth [1984 (4) SCC 27] it was observed thus : "...the Court should be extremely reluctant to substitute its own views as to what is wise, prudent and proper in relation to academic matters in preference to those formulated by professional men possessing technical expertise and rich experience of actual day-to-day working of educational institutions and the departments controlling them."

Phone=

Location:

SREEDEVI

Page | 9

In All India Council for Technical Education v. Surinder Kumar Dhawan [2009 (11) SCC 726] this court held : "The courts are neither equipped nor have the academic or technical background to substitute themselves in place of statutory professional technical bodies and take decisions in academic matters involving standards and quality of technical education. If the courts start entertaining petitions from individual institutions or students to permit courses of their choice, either for their convenience or to alleviate hardship or to provide better opportunities, or because they think that one course is equal to another, without realizing the repercussions on the field of technical education in general, it will lead to chaos in education and deterioration in standards of education. ...... The role of statutory expert bodies on education and role of courts are well defined by a simple rule. If it is a question of educational policy or an issue involving academic matter, the courts keep their hands off. If any provision of law or principle of law has to be interpreted, applied or enforced, with reference to or connected with education, the courts will step in." (emphasis supplied) This Court also repeatedly held that courts are not concerned with the practicality or wisdom of the policies but only illegality. In Directorate of Film Festivals v. Gaurav Ashwin Jain [2007 (4) SCC 737] this court held : "....Courts do not and cannot act as appellate authorities examining the correctness, suitability and appropriateness of a policy, nor are courts advisors to the executive on matters of policy which the executive is entitled to formulate. The scope of judicial review when examining a policy of the Government is to check whether it violates the fundamental rights of the citizens or is opposed to the provisions of the Constitution, or opposed to any statutory provision or manifestly arbitrary. Courts cannot interfere with policy either on the ground that it is erroneous or on the ground that a better, fairer or wiser alternative is available. Legality of the policy, and not the wisdom or soundness of the policy, is the subject of judicial review..." (emphasis supplied)

19. Thus, the process of evaluation, the process of ranking and selection of candidates for admission with reference to their performance, the process of achieving the objective of selecting candidates who will be better equipped to suit the specialized courses, are all technical matters in academic field and courts will not interfere in such processes. Courts will interfere only if they find all or any of the

Phone=

Location:

SREEDEVI

Page | 10

following : (i) violation of any enactment, statutory Rules and Regulations; (ii) mala fides or ulterior motives to assist or enable private gain to someone or cause prejudice to anyone; or where the procedure adopted is arbitrary and capricious. An action is said to be arbitrary and capricious, where a person, in particular, a person in authority does any action based on individual discretion by ignoring prescribed rules, procedure or law and the action or decision is founded on prejudice or preference rather than reason or fact. To be termed as arbitrary and capricious, the action must be illogical and whimsical, something without any reasonable explanation. When an action or procedure seeks to achieve a specific objective in furtherance of education in a bona fide manner, by adopting a process which is uniform and non-discriminatory, it cannot be described as arbitrary or capricious or mala fide.” 6.5 We may also refer to the following observations in paras 31 and 32 which show why the constitutional courts must exercise restraint in such matters: Ran Vijay Singh v. State of U.P., (2018) 2 SCC 357 : (2018) 1 SCC (L&S) 297] , SCC p. 369) “31. On our part we may add that sympathy or compassion does not play any role in the matter of directing or not directing re-evaluation of an answer sheet. If an error is committed by the examination authority, the complete body of candidates suffers. The entire examination process does not deserve to be derailed only because some candidates are disappointed or dissatisfied or perceive some injustice having been caused to them by an erroneous question or an erroneous answer. All candidates suffer equally, though some might suffer more but that cannot be helped since mathematical precision is not always possible. This Court has shown one way out of an impasse — exclude the suspect or offending question. It is rather unfortunate that despite several decisions of this Court, some of which have been discussed above, there is interference by the courts in the result of examinations. This places the examination authorities in an unenviable position where they are under scrutiny and not the candidates. Additionally, a massive and sometimes prolonged examination exercise concludes with an air of uncertainty. While there is no doubt that candidates put in a tremendous effort in preparing for an examination, it must not be forgotten that even the examination authorities put in equally great efforts to successfully conduct an examination. The enormity of the task might reveal some lapse at a later stage, but the court must consider the internal checks and balances put in place by the

Phone=

Location:

SREEDEVI

Page | 11

examination authorities before interfering with the efforts put in by the candidates who have successfully participated in the examination and the examination authorities. The present appeals are a classic example of the consequence of such interference where there is no finality to the result of the examinations even after a lapse of eight years. Apart from the examination authorities even the candidates are left wondering about the certainty or otherwise of the result of the examination—whether they have passed or not; whether their result will be approved or disapproved by the court; whether they will get admission in a college or university or not; and whether they will get recruited or not. This unsatisfactory situation does not work to anybody's advantage and such a state of uncertainty results in confusion being worse confounded. The overall and larger impact of all this is that public interest suffers.”

6.6 The plea urged that applicants have their last attempt how could the judicial review in scrutiny will help the applicants rather it goes against them as when they had appeared in earlier attempts when there were no allegations of questions out of syllabus they failed to qualify. Similar is a situation when the candidates go through different stages of competitive examination do not qualify in final results. There are lacs of candidates, who appear in CSE Examination which is most prestigious and sought after elite services, standards have to be high, wherein in many have succeeded too. 6.7 The Courts/Tribunals in scope to their power of judicial review cannot go into what would be attributes of good question paper in competitive examination or difficult one. To say the least, to conduct a large scale examination is a very difficult task and may reveal certain lapses, which cannot on the face of it be termed as a deliberate and colourble exercise of power. There is no plea that the questions are patently wrong or

Phone=

Location:

SREEDEVI

Page | 12

ambiguity in the questions. No material to show all the applicant(s) were very close to secure the cut-off marks. The authority to set questions is within the exclusive domain of executive or experts who have set the question papers. Individual grievances qua out of syllabus, if any, which have urged by the applicants on the point of that many candidates had last chance cannot be accepted at this stage in light of observations in Siddarath’s case (supra). Even assuming for sake of arguments, it has not be demonstrated by comparative data/ analysis or as such there is ample evidence on record as to how the applicants would have gained their merit position qua others who would also be awarded equal treatment and proportionate marks if we were to hold that the certain questions were out of syllabus.(See also Lokanadham vs. Chairman, Telecom Commissioner & Another - (2008) 5 SCC 155).

7.

CONCLUSION

In view of the above circumstances, we do not find any irregularity in the respondents' actions. Accordingly, OA is dismissed as being devoid of merit. Pending MAs, if any, shall also stand disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.

(VARUN SINDHU KUL KAUMUDI)

(MANISH GARG) MEMBER (ADMN.)

MEMBER(JUDL.) /sd/

Phone=

Location:

SREEDEVI