Kiran vs SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY on 9 October 2026

O R D E R

PER: JUSTICE S. SUJATHA, MEMBER (J)

This application is filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs: “a) Call for DPC proceedings leading to selection of R-5 as per order dated 04.08.2025 Annexure A12 and peruse the same

b) Quash the order bearing No: SWR/HQ/P.607/ Comml./2025-26/70%, dated 04.08.2025, Annexure A12, passed by Principal Chief Personnel Officer, Headquarter Office, Personnel Department, SWR, Hubballi, R-2 herein- so far as it pertains to selection of Respondent No. 5.

c) Direct the respondents to consider the claim of the applicant for promotion to the grade of Assistant Commercial Manager with reference to selection process in Commercial Department of SWR Hubballi initiated under notification dated 29.10.2024 Ann-A4 in respect of 01 post under PwBD category.

d) Pass any other order or direction that this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem it fit and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the present case and in the interest of justice and equity.”

2. Facts in brief as narrated by the applicant are that the applicant belongs to SC reserved category and in addition to that he came to be appointed in South Western Railway, Hubballi as Junior Clerk with effect from 21.05.2013 under the category of Persons with Benchmark Disability (PwBD) and thereafter stands promoted to the grade of Senior Clerk and Office Superintendent on 26.05.2016 and 06.06.2018, respectively. As per Railway Board instructions issued under RBE No. 06/2024 dated 18.01.2024, applicant has been extended with the notional promotion as Chief Office Superintendent retrospectively with effect from 06.06.2020 as per order dated 26.12.2024. South Western Railway, Hubballi issued notification dated 29.10.2024 to fill up two posts of Assistant Commercial Manager (ACM) in Level-8 (UR:01, SC: Nil, PwBD: 01 (LD-OA/OL, Leprosy Cured, Acid Attack Victims) in Commercial Department through centralized Computer Based Objective Type Examination (CBT) against 70% quota. In this notification, there is a reference to Railway Board orders dated 27.09.2024 and 28.06.2022. As per the said notification dated 29.10.2024, the post notified therein under the 70% quota pertain to the vacancy cycle of 01.01.2025 to 31.12.2026 and assessment of record of service envisaged under this 70% quota is based on the

Confidential Report (CR) for the last five years and the marks to be given are as follows: Outstanding: 05 marks Very Good: 04 marks Good:

03 marks Good/Not Fit: 2.5 marks Average:

02 marks Below average: 01 mark

3. Further, in order to be fit for promotion, an employee must get a minimum of 15 marks from the last five CRs and should have been rated as ‘fit for promotion’ in the last CR. The seniority list assumes significance in the matter of selection as filling up of 70% quota, with which the applicant is concerned, is on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness. In this seniority list, applicant’s name appears at Sl. No. 32 whereas the Private Respondent No. 5’s name appears at Sl. No. 54. Applicant’s notional promotion to his present grade is with effect from 06.06.2020 whereas Respondent No. 5’s date of entry to this grade is 18.11.2024. Further, it is stated that the applicant’s five years APARs under consideration for this selection process are ‘Very Good ‘every year. As per Headquarters Office, Personnel Department, South Western Railway, Hubballi

Notification dated 15.07.2025 against one vacancy meant for PwBD category, only two persons are declared to have been qualified in the main examination viz., this applicant and Respondent No. 5 under PwBD-One Leg (OL) category. Under PwBD vacancy of this notification in addition to applicant and Respondent No. 5, names of other two persons are also indicated. On 28.07.2025, applicant, Respondent No.

and Shri Lakshminarayana B. out of the four names appearing in the list were called for viva voce test scheduled to be held on 30.07.2025. It is the grievance of the applicant that in spite of applicant being senior to Respondent No. 5 and having preferential claim, ignoring his claim, railway administration was pleased to notify the Panel No. 160 dated 04.08.2025 in respect of 70% selection process initiated on 29.10.2024 selecting Respondent No. 5. Being aggrieved, the applicant has preferred this OA.

4. Learned counsel Shri P.A. Kulkarni representing the applicant submitted that the applicant has a preferential claim over Respondent No. 5 in every respect. Even though applicant and Respondent No. 5 both belong to PwBD (OL) category, applicant's disability being 50% and Respondent No.5’s disability being 45%, on that ground also applicant has a preferential claim over Respondent No. 5 in addition to the seniority aspect and Record of Service. It is the apprehension of the applicant that in spite of he performing well in the viva voce, less marks could have been awarded to him than his entitlement as viva voce proceedings are not recorded. Learned counsel submitted that the marks scored by the candidates in the written examination and Record of Service being made available before the viva voce committee, manipulation of marks in the viva voce to select Respondent No. 5 is apparent. On this ground alone, selection of Respondent No. 5 deserves to be set aside. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Writ Petition No. 65380/2010 and connected matter (Union of India and Ors. vs. M.G. Mayaganna and Ors.).

5. Learned counsel Shri N. Amaresh representing the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 submitted that as per Rule 201.1 of Indian Railway Establishment Manual (IREM) Vol. I, all vacancies in Group ‘B’ are filled by promotion on the basis of selection of eligible Group ‘C’ employees and also on the basis of Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE), wherever the scheme is in force. Where the scheme of LDCE is in force, selection is held to fill up 70% of the vacancies and LDCE is held to fill the remaining 30% of the vacancies. Notification dated 29.10.2024 and letter dated 14.11.2024 were issued for filling up UR-2 vacancies including 1 PWBD (LD-OA/OL). In terms of the results of centralized computer based test declared on 15.07.2025 and 24.07.2025, 10 employees were eligible for the viva voce, including the applicant who was the senior most candidate under PwBD quota out of four PwBD candidates. The awarding of marks under the head 'Record of Service’ has been done in accordance with the instructions contained in Railway Board’s RBE No. 39/2022 dated 31.03.2022, Railway Board’s letter dated 29.09.1989 and in terms of Railway Board’s letter dated 16.04.2018, previous five years APARs from 2019-2020 to 2023-2024 have been considered for the assessment period of the selection i.e., from 01.01.2025 to 30.06.2027. Based on RBE No. 10/2025 dated 03.02.2025 panel is to be formed as per seniority. The Panel No. 160 dated 04.08.2025 has been issued as per seniority-cum- suitability. The applicant who could not score the requisite marks in the Record of Service + viva voce (i.e., 19.8 + 8 = 27.8, which is less than requisite 30 marks) was found unsuitable and could not get a place in the panel for the Group ‘B’ post of ACM against 70%

quota. Accordingly, Respondent No.5, the next employee in the seniority, who has secured more marks in CBT and performed well in the viva voce was placed in the panel. Thus, justifying the said selected panel, learned counsel seeks for dismissal of the OA.

6. Learned counsel Shri K. Shivakumar representing the Respondent No. 5 submitted that the subject selection is based on the written examination marks, marks secured in Record of Service and viva voce as mentioned in para 4 of the Notification dated 29.10.2024. Respondent No. 5 has scored more marks in the written examination and viva voce than that of the applicant. Besides getting 60% marks in the written examination, one has to get 60% in Record of Service and viva voce put together for finding the name in the panel. The applicant has secured 67.37 marks in the written examination out of 100 marks, whereas Respondent No. 5 has scored 70.71 marks. In the Record of Service and viva voce put together, the applicant has secured 27.8 marks, which is less than the minimum requirement of 30 marks, whereas the Respondent No. 5 has secured 31.8 marks. Learned counsel justifying the selection of the 5th respondent, seeks for dismissal of the OA.

7. We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

8. The factual aspects are not in dispute. As per Rule 201.1 of Indian Railway Establishment Manual Volume. I, all vacancies in Group ‘B’ are to be filled by promotion on the basis of selection of eligible Group ‘C’ employees and also on the basis of LDCE. This Rule provides for filling up for 70% of the vacancies through selection process on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness and remaining 30% of the vacancies are to be filled up through LDCE. Pursuant to the Railway Board's letter dated 27.09.2024, South Western Railway, Hubballi issued notification to fill up two posts of Assistant Commercial Manager (ACM) in Level-8 in Commercial Department through centralized Computer Based Objective Type Examination (CBT) against 70% quota (UR:01, SC:NIL, ST:NIL, PwBD:01 (LD-OA/OL, Leprosy Cured, Acid Attack Victims). In terms of the said notification dated 29.10.2024, the last date for receipt of application was fixed as 15.11.2024. Main Examination was held on 04.05.2025 and 18.05.2025 and Supplementary Examination was held on 01.06.2025 for formation of the panel in this case. List of qualified candidates in the Main

Examination is issued on 15.07.2025 and viva voce was held on 30.07.2025.

9. In terms of the proceedings of the DPC held on 30.07.2025 for promotion to the Group 'B' post of ACM in Level-8 of pay matrix against 70% quota selection in Commercial Department on South Western Railway, Hubballi, Respondent No. 5 has been placed in the selection panel on the basis of 'seniority' in Commercial Department on South Western Railway for the assessment period 01.01.2025 to 30.06.2027. In terms of para (2) and (3) of Railway Board’s letter No. E(GP)2024/2/28 (E. No. 3466256), dated 03.02.2025 (RBE No. 10/2025), the panels will be formed in the order of seniority. The same reads thus: “2. ………….. it has been decided by Board that in the case of Group ‘B’ posts other than APO, the candidates for Viva Voce and assessment of Record of Service shall be called to the extent of 06 times the number of vacancies (Category-wise) in the order of seniority…….”

3. Further, it has been decided to do away with the grading of candidates as ‘Good’/’Outstanding’ and subsequent supersession (as contained in paras 204.8 and 204.9 of IREM Vol.I Revised Edition 1989) in 70% Selections across all Organized Departments. The Panels will be formed in the order of seniority”.

10. In this regard, General Manager has constituted a standing Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) comprising Principal Chief Commercial Manager (PCCM), Principal Chief Operations Manager (PCOM), Principal Chief Personnel Officer (PCPO) and Chief Mechanical Engineer/Planning (CME/Plg) for the purpose of promotion. As per Annexure-A to the said DPC proceedings against PwBD vacancy, it is shown as under:

& Praveen Malage, CCC/BJP/UBL at S.No. 04 is given unwillingness to attend the Viva-Test

* Viva-voce + Record of Service – minimum qualifying marks 30 out of 50 (including at least 15 marks in the Record of Service). minimum qualifying marks.

Sd/-

Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- (S P Shastri) (B Prashanth Kumar) (Surya Prakash) (Umesh Kumar) PCCM PCOM PCPO CME/Plg S N Name (S/Shri) Designation/ Unit Comm unity Qualif ication Prese nt Pay Matrix Level Date of Birth Date of Appt Date of Entry into Level

(regular) Date of Entry into Level-

(regular) Marks obtained CBT (MC Q) marks Record of Servi ce Vi va vo ce Total Remarks

60# 30* 90#

Against PwBD Vacancy

Kiran, Ch.OS/HQ SC B.A

01.06.

21.05.

06.06.

06.06.

67. 19.8

95. UNSUIT ABLE

Sunil Kumar Suman, CCS/KJM/ SBC OBC B.Sc

27.02.

02.06. 2014/

01.06.

29.06.

17.11.

70. 19.8

102. SUITABLE

Lakshminara yana B, CCC/KJM/ SBC UR B.Com

10.05.

02.06. 2014/

01.06.

19.07.

11.11.

65. 19.9

94. UNSUIT ABLE

Praveen Malage, CCC/BJP/ UBL (&) UR PUC, D.Ed

01.06.

04.06.

31.12. - - - - -

11. It is not in dispute that the applicant is senior to the Respondent No. 5. Viva voce was conducted on 30.07.2025. In terms of Railway Board’s letter No. E (GP) 2022/2/4 dated 07.10.2022 and para 204.1 of IREM Vol. I, Chapter II, the employees to be placed on the panel are required to obtain (i) a minimum of 60 marks in the written examination out of 100 marks and (ii) a minimum of 30 marks out of 50 marks for ‘Record of Service and viva voce’ including at least 15 marks in the ‘Record of Service’. The awarding of marks under the head 'Record of Service' has been done in accordance with the instructions contained in Railway Board’s RBE No. 39/2022, dated 31.03.2022 and in terms of Railway Board’s letter dated 16.04.2018, previous five year APARs from 2019-2020 to 2023-2024 have been reckoned for the assessment period of the selection i.e., from 01.01.2025 to 30.06.2027.

12. In this background, the sole point that arises for our consideration is, whether the selection panel made against one PwBD vacancy to Group ‘B’ post of ACM in Commercial Department/South Western Railway pursuant to the notification dated 29.10.2024 is legal and valid?

13. In terms of the said notification, scheme of selection is as under:

“4. Scheme of Selection: The selection will be on the basis of Centralized Computer Based Multiple Choice Objective type examination (CBT), Medical examination, Viva-voce and assessment of record of service.

(a) (i) The written examination will comprise of one Paper which will have 100% Objective type Multiple Choice Questions only.

(ii) All Objective type MCQ will carry equal marks.

(iii) There shall be no negative marking for incorrect answers in terms of Railway Board’s letter No. E(GP)2024/2/28 dated 08.10.2024.

Prescribed paper Max. marks Qualifying marks Duration of exam Professional Subject including optional questions of 10 marks on Official Language Policy & Rules

02 hrs Establishment Rules & Financial Rules

Note: (i) 10% of the 100 marks prescribed for written examination held as part of selection should be set apart for questions on Official Language Policy and Rules. The questions shall be optional type and not compulsory.

(ii) The employees securing qualifying marks in the written examination will be eligible for medical examination. Only those employees who are certified fit in the prescribed medical examination will be allowed to appear for Viva- voce as per extant rules.

b) Record of service and Viva-voce:-

Viva-voce Maximum marks Qualifying marks Record of service 25 30 (including minimum 15 marks in record of service)” Viva-voce

14. As per para of the said notification, the instructions/procedure contained in Master Circular No. 68 regarding Group 'B' selection and also instructions issued by Railway Board from time to time will be followed in addition to the above instructions. In order to ascertain whether the marks scored by the candidates in Record of Service was made known to the viva voce committee, we have called the original file since qualifying marks prescribed for Record of Service and viva voce is 30, including minimum 15 marks in Record of Service. As per the original records placed before us, the marks were awarded for Record of Service as per Annexure-B to the DPC proceedings held on 30.07.2025. The same reads thus:

“Annexure ‘B’

AWARDING OF MARKS FOR OVERALL GRADING/SPECIAL ATTRIBUTES IN SECTION-II OF APARs FOR THE LAST 5 YERS IN RESPECT OF THE CANDIDATES CALLED FOR VIVA-VOCE FOR SELECTION TO THE GROUP ‘B’ POST OF ACM (70% QUOTA) IN THE PAY MATRIX LEVEL-8 IN COMMERCIAL DEPARTMENT ON SWR

S No Name, Designation & Unit (Shri/Smt)

2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 Total

Overall Average

(A) + (B)

D Karunakar Babu, CCI/HQ, PCCM/O/SWR Overall Grading (A) Very Good Good Good Very Good Very Good

18+18.6

Special Attributes in Section II (B) A) Outstanding A) Good A) Good A) Very Good A) Very Good

B) Very Good B) Good B) Good B) Good B) Very Good C) Outstanding C) Good C) Good C) Very Good C) Very Good D) Outstanding D) Good D) Good D) Very Good D) Very Good E) Outstanding E) Good E) Good E) Very Good E) Very Good Marks

18.6 18.3

Satish Kumar Prasad, Instructor/ Comml/MDZTI/DWR Overall Grading (A) Very Good Outstanding Very Good Average Very Good

19+18

Special Attributes in Section II (B) A) @4 A) Outstanding A) Very Good A) Average A) Good

B)Very Good B) Outstanding B) Very Good B) Average B) Good C) Very Good C) Outstanding C) Very Good C) Average C) Good D) Very Good D) Outstanding D) Very Good D) Average D) Good E) Very Good E) Outstanding E) Very Good E) Average E) Good Marks

18.5

Note: @ Grading for the special attribute (A) for the year 2019-20 is not recorded (F/121). Hence, the average grading of attributes (B+C+D+E) of 2019-20 i.e. 16/4 = 4 has been taken for attribute (A).

Subash Chandra Naik, CCS/KJM,SBC Overall Grading (A) Very Good Very Good Very Good Very Good Very Good

20+20

Special Attributes in Section II (B) A) Very Good A) Very Good A) Very Good A) Very Good A) Very Good

B)Very Good B)Very Good B) Very Good B)Very Good B)Very Good C) Very Good C) Very Good C) Very Good C) Very Good C) Very Good D) Very Good D) Very Good D) Very Good D) Very Good D) Very Good E) Very Good E) Very Good E) Very Good E) Very Good E) Very Good Marks

Basudev Behera, Ch.OS/HQ, PCCM/O/SWR

2019-20 @ 2017-18 2020-21@ 2018-19 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24

Overall Grading (A) Outstanding Outstanding Outstanding Outstanding Outstanding

25+22.4

Special Attributes in Section II (B) A) Very Good A) Outstanding A) Outstanding A) Very Good A) Outstanding

B) Very Good B) Very Good B) Outstanding B) Outstanding B) Outstanding C) Very Good C) Very Good C) Outstanding C) Outstanding C) Outstanding D) Very Good D) Very Good D) Outstanding D) Very Good D) Outstanding E) Very Good E) Very Good E) Outstanding E) Good E) Outstanding Marks

22.4 23.7

A.M. Hari, CCS/SBC

2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24

Overall Grading (A) Very Good Very Good Very Good Outstanding Outstanding

22+20

Special Attributes in Section II (B) A) Very Good A) Very Good A) Very Good A) Very Good A) Very Good

B) Very Good B) Very Good B) Very Good B) Very Good B) Very Good C) Very Good C) Very Good C) Very Good C) Very Good C) Very Good D) Very Good D) Very Good D) Very Good D) Very Good D) Very Good E) Very Good E) Very Good E) Very Good E) Very Good E) Very Good Marks

Note: @ E-APAR for the year 2019-20 & 2020-21 are not available in physical/HRMS mode (F/124-123). Hence, previous available APARs i.e. 2017-18 & 2018-19 are taken as per Railway Board letter No. E (GP)89/2/30 dated 29.09.89 (F/125).

Brijendra Singh Meena, CCS/SBC Overall Grading (A) Very Good Outstanding Outstanding Outstanding Outstanding

24+22.2

Special Attributes in Section II (B) A) Very Good A)Outstanding A) Very Good A)Outstanding A) Very Good

B) Very Good B)Outstanding B) Very Good B)Outstanding B) Very Good C) Very Good C)Outstanding C) Very Good C)Outstanding C) Very Good D) Very Good D)Outstanding D) Very Good D)Outstanding D) Very Good E) Very Good E)Outstanding E)Outstanding E)Outstanding E) Very Good Marks

22.2 23.1

Kiran, Ch.OS/HQ PCCM/O/SWR Overall Grading (A) Very Good Very Good Very Good Very Good Very Good

20+19.6

Special Attributes in Section II (B) A) Very Good A) Very Good A) Very Good A) Very Good A) Very Good

B) Very Good B) Very Good B) Very Good B)Outstanding B) Very Good C) Very Good C) Good C) Very Good C) Very Good C) Very Good D) Very Good D) Good D) Very Good D) Very Good D) Very Good E) Very Good E) Good E) Very Good E) Very Good E) Very Good Marks

19.6 19.8

Sunil Kumar Suman, CCC/KJM,SBC Overall Grading (A) Very Good Very Good Very Good Very Good Very Good

20+19.6

Special Attributes in Section II (B) A) Very Good A) Good A) Good A) Very Good A) Very Good

B) Very Good B) Very Good B) Very Good B) Very Good B) Very Good C) Very Good C) Very Good C) Very Good C) Very Good C) Very Good D) Very Good D) Very Good D) Very Good D) Very Good D) Very Good E) Very Good E) Very Good E) Very Good E) Very Good E) Very Good Marks

19.6 19.8

Lakshminarayana B, CCC/KJM, SBC Overall Grading (A) Very Good Very Good Very Good Very Good Very Good

20+19.8

Special Attributes in Section II (B) A) Very Good A) Good A) Very Good A) Very Good A) Very Good

B) Very Good B) Very Good B) Very Good B) Very Good B) Very Good C) Very Good C) Very Good C) Very Good C) Very Good C) Very Good D) Very Good D) Very Good D) Very Good D) Very Good D) Very Good E) Very Good E) Very Good E) Very Good E) Very Good E) Very Good Marks

19.8 19.9

Praveen Malage, CCC/BJP, UBL

Expressed unwillingness (F/102)

Note:- Key: Outstanding: 5 Marks, Very Good: 4 Marks, Good: 3 Marks, Average: 2 Marks, Below Average: 1 Mark (Ref: Railway Board’s letter No. E (GP) 2010/2/45 dated 31.03.2022 (RBE No. 39/2022)).

Sd/-

Sd/-

Sd/-

Sd/- (S P Shastri)

(B Prashanth Kumar)

(Surya Prakash)

(Umesh Kumar) PCCM

PCOM

PCPO

CME/Plg”

15. The members who have awarded the marks for Record of Service are the same members who were in the viva voce committee viz., Shri S.P. Shastri-PCCM, Shri B. Prashanth Kumar- PCOM, Shri Surya Prakash-PCPO, and Shri Umesh Kumar- CME/Plg. In this context, it is significant to note that considering an identical issue, the jurisdictional High Court of Karnataka in Writ Petition No. 65380/2010 connected with Writ Petition No. 65381/2010, supra, has observed thus:

“13. It seen that the applicant (Vide Sl.no.5 in the table above) in Application No.136/2007 secured 93.25 out of 150 in the written test and 19.40 out of 25 in the Records of Service but secured only 6 marks in the viva voce. In the same way, the applicant (Vide Sl.no.3 in the table above) in Application No.137/2007 secured 91.50 out of 150 in the written test and 19.50 out of 25 in the Records of Service and 7 marks in the viva voce. From this, it is apparent that there is a glaring variation between the marks secured in the 'viva voce' and in the marks secured in 'written test' and in the 'Records of Service', as far as the applicants are concerned. It is in this background, applicants have pleaded mala fides in law against the Selection Committee, as, on account of the allotment of very low marks in the viva voce, the applicants did not secure the minimum qualifying marks and as a result, they were not promoted. The fact that the persons, who conducted the interview were made aware of the marks secured by the candidates in the written test and the Records of Service, would imply that the result of the interview was a foregone conclusion in as much as having fixed the minimum marks in the Record of Service and interview put together, it would have been possible to eliminate candidates by awarding low marks in the interview, i.e., marks lesser than the aforesaid minimum qualifying prescribed and as a result they would not be selected at all. The fact that the knowledge about the marks secured by the candidates in the written test and the Records of Service was with the persons who conducted the interview would imply that there was a possibility that the interview would not be conducted in a transparent manner. We are not on the question as to whether the interview was in fact conducted in a fair manner or not in the instant case. The knowledge of the marks secured by the candidates in the written test as well as the Record of service would clearly indicate a possibility of the marks allotted being manipulated. This possibility, even in the absence of there being any manipulation as such, is sufficient for us to hold that the viva voce test was not conducted in a transparent manner, without attributing any mala fides on the interview panel. The interview panel in order to have an objective approach, must not be made known of the marks obtained by the candidates in the Written test as well as the Record of Service. It is on this short ground alone that the promotion has to be set aside and relief would have to be granted to the applicants.” (emphasis supplied)

Thus, setting aside the portion of the order relating to quashing para 204.1 of IREM Volume I and upholding the rest of the order of the Tribunal, the Hon'ble High Court allowed the petitions in part.

16. In OA Nos. 136/2007 and OA No. 137/2007 (DD: 07.07.2010) (M.G. Mayaganna and Anr. vs. Union of India and Ors.), challenged in Writ Petition Nos. 65380/2010 connected with Writ Petition No. 65381/2010, supra, this Tribunal adjudicating on an identical issue held that having noticed the facts, the possibilities of malafide in law expressed in OA No. 389/1989 (Ernakulam

Bench) (K. Yesodharan vs. General Manager, Southern Railway) and alleged in the said OAs are confirmed, based on which, the provision in para 204.1 of IREM Volume I, which lays down qualifying marks of 30 in viva voce (maximum marks 25) and Record of Service (maximum marks 25) was quashed and set aside. This portion of the order has been set aside by the Hon’ble High Court as discussed hereinabove.

17. Learned counsel for the official respondents has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Writ Petition No. 6073/2022, DD: 04.06.2026 (Pankaj Prakash and Anr. vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another) and Review Petition No. 287/2026 as well as Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 41015/2026 (DD: 17.07.2026). In Para No. 13 of the Review Petition order, it is observed thus: “13. Paragraph No. 15 of the Judgment under review clearly records that mere knowledge by the Interview Committee of the written test scores, APAR and seniority marks of the candidates cannot, by itself, lead to an inference that the interview results were manipulated. This observation demonstrates that the submissions sought to be raised by the Petitioners in the present Review Petition have already been considered. Admittedly, the Petitioners have not placed on record any material to establish manipulation by the Interview Committee.”

18. Para 15 of the Writ Petition referred to therein reads thus: “15. Mere knowledge by the Interview Committee of the Written Test scores, APARs and seniority marks of candidates eligible for interview cannot, in the absence of cogent evidence, lead to the inference that the interview results were manipulated so as to favour pre-identified candidates at the expense of the Petitioners.”

19. With great respect, we find it hard to follow the said judgment ignoring the judgment of the jurisdictional High Court which has reached finality by implementing the said order. Moreover, the said judgment rendered by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka was not brought to the notice of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi. Binding precedent has primacy over the judgment having persuasive value. Hence, following the judgment of the jurisdictional High Court, we have no hesitation to hold that the Interview/Viva voce panel, in order to have objective approach, must not be made known of the marks obtained by the candidates in the written test as well as the Record of Service. In order to ascertain the procedure adopted by the viva voce committee, we have repeatedly requested the official respondents to place on record the working sheets of the evaluators/examiners, if any. We have posed a question, whether the examiners of the viva voce committee were provided with separate tabulation sheets to assess the candidates. The answer was in the negative. On the other hand, it was submitted that the viva voce committee has assessed the candidates on inter se analysis while awarding the marks. It has been candidly admitted that the marks scored by the candidates in Record of Service and Written Examination were known to the Members of the viva voce committee.

20. It is well-settled that justice must not only be done, but must be seen to be done. As observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi reported in (1981) 1 SCC 722 that "the oral interview test is undoubtedly not a very satisfactory test for assessing and evaluating the capacity and calibre of candidates……."

21. It is trite that the possibility of arbitrariness in the award of marks is very high in interviews, particularly when the Selection Committee has some axe to grind against the particular candidate. In order to avoid such apprehensions, use of advanced technology like recording/video recording of the interview process is necessary. In order to establish the bonafides, transparent procedure has to be adopted in conducting viva voce. The marks awarded by each Member of the viva voce committee would be a guide to arrive at the conclusion i.e., in awarding the total marks in viva voce. Such working sheets has to be maintained as part of the file.

22. We find nothing on record to prove that the private respondent has used any unfair means to secure the promotion and he has worked in the selected post of Assistant Commercial Manager against UR (PwBD LD-OL) pursuant to the order impugned dated 04.08.2025. For the fault of the official respondents in not following the settled legal principles enunciated by the jurisdictional High Court in Writ Petition No. 65380/2010 connected with Writ Petition No. 65381/2010, private respondent cannot be punished. Accordingly, we pass the following:

:ORDER:

Respondents are directed to create one supernumerary post of PwBD LD-OL in the cadre of Assistant Commercial Manager in Level-8 against 70% quota in Commercial Department relating to Panel No. 160 dated 04.08.2025, to accommodate the applicant till regular vacancies arise.

The applicant shall be promoted to the cadre of Assistant Commercial Manager in Level-8 against 70% quota in Commercial Department in the created supernumerary post.

This exercise shall be completed within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

The applicant will be eligible for all consequential benefits but not for any arrears of pay and allowances.

However, the same shall be subject to further orders that may be passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Jarnail Singh batch of cases, in terms of Railway Board’s letter No. 2018-E(SCT)1/25/9 dated 22.06.2022.

With the aforesaid observations and directions, OA stands disposed of. No order as to costs.

Sd/- Sd/-

(DR. SANJIV KUMAR) (JUSTICE S. SUJATHA)

MEMBER (A)

MEMBER (J)

/ksk/