Shiv Shankar Kumar vs N.F.RAILWAY on 29 September 2026

ORDER

PER: RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA, MEMBER (J):

This O.A. has been filed by the applicants under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs: “8.1. Applicant be promoted as AMM (Group B) as a result of the selection notification dated 18.01.2024 for selection of AMM (Gr. B)-70% through CBT.

8.2. The Question no. 48 in the Questions set by NAIR for the Written Test of the selection shall be declared as ‘Deleted’.

8.3. The marks shown against the applicant in letter dated 06.05.2024 (Annexure A1), Sl. No. 5 against the 3rd and 4th column shown as 87.63 and 119.13 may be set aside and quashed, and substituted as 88.88 and 120.38 respectively.

8.4. The marks shown against Sl. no.2, the applicant in the details of marks enclosed with letter dated 06.05.2024 (Annexure A1) be set aside as erroneous, and correct final score (column 18) be recorded as 88.88 as per prayer 8.3 above.

8.5. The panel for selection of AMM- 70% declared by letter dated 06.05.2024(Annexure A2) be rnodified/amended by including the name of the applicant as against Sl. no. 2 in place of respondent no. 5, Sl. no. 1 remaining unchanged, selection of respondent no. 5 be set aside.

8.6. The order of promotion as AMM (Gr. B)) no. 6/2024 (stores) dated 14.05.2024(Annexure A3) at Sl. no. 7 be modified/amended by promoting the applicant to AMM (Gr. B), with consequential benefits quashing and setting aside/deleting the name of respondent no. 5.

PRASANNA BASUMATARY PRASANNA BASUMATARY

8.7. Any other relief or reliefs as the Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper, including the cost of the case.”

2. The Main grievance of the applicant is that while working as Chief Depot Material Superintendent, Pandu in the N.F Railway, he participated in the selection process under Notification dated 11.01.2024. Answer key circulated on 20.03.2024 against question no.48 was wrong as per the Statements showing categories of items (Annexure 10 colly) and ought to have been deleted like the other wrong questions. His response submitted online on 22.03.2024 was not considered while issuing the final Answer key on 01.01.2024 with the wrong Answer key. Consequently the applicant is denied his due marks and outstanding grading and empanelment and promotion to the post of Assistant Material Manager (Group B). He, therefore, by way of this O.A., prays for deletion of Q. No. 48 for ascertaining the total marks of the candidates in the selection against Notification dated 11.01.2024 and consequently modifying the overall marks of the applicant shown in the letter dated 06.05.2024; and the panel dated 06.05.2024 and the promotion order

PRASANNA BASUMATARY PRASANNA BASUMATARY

dated 14.05.2024 for the post of AMM (Group B) by including the name of the applicant in place of respondent No. 5.

3. As per the applicant, the criteria for selection and promotion to the post of Assistant Material Manager (Group B) under Notification dated 11.01.2024 is merit cum seniority, he with ‘Outstanding’ performance in the selection process and being senior to the respondent No. 5 is entitled to be selected and promoted instead of the respondent No. 5. Besides, he is a victim of administrative lapses and error in non-deletion of Question No. 48 as done for other wrong questions, while declaring the result, panel and the promotion order, which is liable to be rectified by the respondents by following the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Arun Kumar Chatterjee Vs. South Eastern Railway & Ors. [(1985) 2 SCC 451)].

4. Applicant has also filed Affidavit wherein he states that during the pendency of the O.A., the O/o the GM (P)/MLG has issued another Notification bearing No. E/254/111/ 12/Pt.X(0) dated 13.11.2024 for promotion to the Group B post of AMM against 6 (UR-04, SC-01, ST 01) posts. The

PRASANNA BASUMATARY PRASANNA BASUMATARY

applicant being eligible again applied for the said post within the cut of date 29.11.2024. The examination was due to be held on 09.03.2024. However since there is no scope for mentioning about his pending claim under O.A. No. 217/2024 while making the application, he submitted representation dated 26.11.2024 stating that his participation/qualification against the Notification dated 13.11.2024 is without prejudice to his pending claim sub judice in the instant O.A. No. 217/2024.

5. Respondents No. 1 to 4 has filed written statement and states that result of the selection (AMM-70%) was published by the respondents on 06.05.2024 with the approval of General Manager/NFR followed by details of the marks obtained by the candidates. The final panel was made as per Master Circular-68, Para 14.1.1. in selection (i.e. 70% quota vacancies). Further, GM(P)/MLG vide letter dated 06.05.2024 had declared the marks obtained by all the candidates in CBT and grand total marks obtained by the candidates in CBT + Record of Service (APARs) + viva-voce were also declared.

PRASANNA BASUMATARY PRASANNA BASUMATARY

6. Respondents further plead that as per the established procedure, the provisional answer key and candidate response sheets were uploaded on NAIR's website from 10:00 a.m. on 20.03.2024 to 5:00 p.m. on 22.03.2024, allowing candidates to raise objections regarding any questions or answers. All objections submitted during this period were reviewed by the paper setter. Final evaluations were conducted after considering valid objections, and the results were shared with Zonal Railways and Production Units. In this context, reference is drawn to Railway Board letters No. E(GP)2022/2/4 dated 26.10.2022 and 28.11.2022. These letters outline the procedure for handling errors in question papers or answer keys. Candidates are allowed to review their response sheets, compare them with the provisional answer keys, and raise objections.

7. In this case, the applicant had challenged the Question No. 48 (Question ID-380) during the objection tracker window. The Question and Options are as under:

(1) Question ID 380: Read the following carefully:

PRASANNA BASUMATARY PRASANNA BASUMATARY

I) Detonators II) Fire extinguisher Foam type III) Flags for hand signal IV) Whistle (Guard)

Options: Option ID 1517: Only I is safety item. Option ID 1518: Only I & II are safety items. Option ID 1519: Only I, II & IIl are safety items. Option ID 1520: All I, II, III & IV are safety items.

Correct option is: Option ID 1520: All I, II, III & IV are safety items. The applicant had challenged that two items i.e. ‘Flag for hand signal’ and ‘Whistle (Guard)’ are not safety items. In this context, respondents have brought our notice to the Railway Board’s Circular dated 12.01.2016 on subject – Safety/Vital items with Unified PL Number marked to the General Managers-All Indian Railways/PUs; which provides list of safety items decided by Railway Board thus applicable for all over Indian Railways. At Sr. No. 9.9 ‘Hand signal flag red’ is mentioned as safety item. At Sr. No. 9.10 ‘Hand signal flag green’ is mentioned as safety item. At Sr. No. 9.25 ‘Whistle (Guard)’ is mentioned as safety item. Hence, the answer of the said question was remained unchanged.

PRASANNA BASUMATARY PRASANNA BASUMATARY

In view of the above, the intention of the candidate that the Question No. 48 to be deleted has no merit. The result submitted by NAIR stands final.

8. By filing rejoinder, applicant reiterates that items I, III and IV are not safety items and the answer to Question No. 48 which states all items I, II, III and IV are safety items is wrong and shall have to be deleted. Total number of Questions is as such 96 not 97 as shown by the respondents.

9. We have heard Dr. G.J. Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri A. Kundu, learned Addl. CGSC for the respondents and scrutinized the entire conspectus of the case.

10. It is an admitted case that the junior of the applicant, who secured 83.51 in the written examination, was promoted as AMM (Group B). The primary objection of the applicant is that his answer to Question No. 48 was right, and the key published by the respondent department was wrong. The record reveals that when the provisional key was published, a 48-hour window was provided for candidates to raise objections in the portal. Accordingly, the applicant

PRASANNA BASUMATARY PRASANNA BASUMATARY

submitted his objection against Question No. 48 on 22.03.2024. All objections submitted by the participants were duly considered by the paper setter, who belongs to a team of experts. Following this evaluation, the objection of the applicant was rejected, and the answer remained unchanged.

11. We note that the answer key published by the Railway was prepared by experts, and the subsequent objections were systematically reviewed by the same expert paper-setting team. Furthermore, the respondents produced the statutory Railway Board Circular dated 12.01.2016, which explicitly classifies hand signal flags (Sr. No. 9.9 & 9.10) and guard whistles (Sr. No. 9.25) as safety items. Therefore, the expert evaluation is backed by official policy.

12. No mala fides have been alleged or proved in the instant case. The evaluation parameters were uniformly applied to all candidates. Because the answer key matches the Railway Board's official classification, the applicant's claim that Question No. 48 must be deleted lacks legal or factual merit.

PRASANNA BASUMATARY PRASANNA BASUMATARY

13. It is a well-settled legal principle that courts and tribunals cannot sit in judgment over the opinion of academic or technical experts. After a gap of more than 2 ½ years, it is highly improper for this Tribunal to substitute its own view for that of the experts. Crucially, this Tribunal did not grant any interim order at the initial stage of these proceedings, nor was any post kept reserved for the applicant. The final result was declared in 2024, the selected candidates were duly appointed, and they joined their respective posts in 2024. After a lapse of 2 ½ years, this Tribunal cannot unsettle a settled position and disrupt administrative hierarchy and appointments that have already crystallized.

14. In view of the above, the instant O.A. does not merit interference and is accordingly dismissed. Pending M.A., if any, stands disposed of. No order as to costs.

(MALLIKA ARYA)

(RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA)

MEMBER (A)

MEMBER (J)

PB

PRASANNA BASUMATARY PRASANNA BASUMATARY