S V SANTOSH KUMAR vs M/o Railways on 13 October 2026

O R D E R

PER:HON’BLEMR. VARUN SINDHU KUL KAUMUDI, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER

1. The present Original Application has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following relief: “….to declare the action of the respondents in constituting the selection board contrary to the guidelines framed by the Railway Board, Ministry of Railways, Government of India for recruitment of in-service candidates to the post of TC/ECCA against 16-2/3% quota in Commercial Department, selection by promotion and further declare that any selection of the candidates for the post of TC/ECCA is void ab initio and consequently direct the respondents to constitute the selection committee as per the guidelines framed by the railway board by issuing the fresh notification and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

2. The facts of the case, in brief, as submitted by the applicant, are as follows: i. The applicant was appointed, on 13.01.2007, as a Commercial Porter at the Bhansi Railway Station, Waltair Division, East Coast Railways, and has been discharging his duties without any blemish. While so, the office of the Divisional Railway Manager, Personnel Department, Waltair Division, issued a notification to conduct selection (written tests), for promotion to the post of TC/ECCA, against 16-2/3 % quota in the Commercial Department. The qualification prescribed for the abovementioned post is 10th Class passed. Since, the applicant was working as a commercial porter and was eligible to be promoted to the post of TC/ECCA, he made an application through the proper channel. ii. After thorough verification of the qualification of the applicant, the applicant’s name was displayed in the eligible candidates’ list and, thereafter, a written test was conducted on 20.01.2018 and 27.01.2018.

Location:

PANDIRLAPA LLI SANDHYA

The applicant appeared for the written test and qualified among 43 members.

iii. It is alleged that the Selection Committee was not constituted as per the guidelines and when the applicant suspected foul play on the part of the Selection Committee, he sought information under the Right to Information Act, 2005. The competent authority furnished the information to the applicant on 07.06.2018, wherein it was informed that the Selection Committee for the purpose of selection to the posts of TC/ECCA is as follows: Selection Committee

DCM (Co-ord) Sr. DOM (M), Sr. DMM, DPO

iv. As per Rule 218 of the IREM, the Railway Board has framed the following guidelines for constituting the Selection Board:

(a) Selection Boards shall consist of not less than three officers, one of whom should be a Personnel Officer and one of the Members should be from a Department other than that for which selection is held. The presence of a Personnel Officer in the Selection Boards along with two officers from the Department for which selection is held would meet the requirement of an officer being from a department other than that for which selection is held.

(b) When a Selection Board consist of only three Officers, none of the members be directly subordinate to any other.

(c) For selection posts in scale of pay Rs.5500-9000(RSRP) and above, the Selections Boards will consist of officers of Junior Administrative Grade. For all other selection posts the Selection Board will consist of officers not lower in rank than senior scale. In either case, except in the case of selection for Personnel Department, the Selection Board may include a Personnel Officer in the

Location:

PANDIRLAPA LLI SANDHYA

next lower rank who shall nevertheless be an equal member of the Selection Board.

Note: In Divisions where JA Grade Officers are not available in the concerned Department, JA Grade Officers of any other Department may be nominated as the members of the Selection Board, the senior scale officer in Independent charge of the concerned Department, who will not be subordinate to any other members of the Selection Board, being nominated as the fourth Member who will also sign the selection proceedings. In the case of selection for Personnel Department if there is no JA Grade officer in the Personnel Department of a Division and the post is Divisionally controlled, in addition to the senior scale personnel officer of the Division, a JA Grade officer of the adjoining Division or of the Headquarters may be included in the Selection Board."

v. The Applicant submits that the Selection Committee was constituted contrary to the above guidelines. On perusal of the information furnished under the Right to Information Act, it was found that the Three Member Committee had nominated the DCM (Co-ord) as the 4th Member of the Selection Board, who is subordinate to the other members of the Board, viz., the Sr.DOM (M), and the Sr. DMM. Therefore, any selection to the post of TC/ECCA, pursuant to the formation of such a Selection Board, is void ab initio and liable to be set aside. Hence, the present OA.

3. Grounds urged by the applicant are as follows: i. The present OA is being filed questioning the action of the respondents in constituting the Selection Board, contrary to the guidelines framed by the Railway Board.

Location:

PANDIRLAPA LLI SANDHYA

ii. Because of the faulty constitution of the Selection Board, the entire selection deserves to be set aside and fresh Selection Board may be constituted, as per the guidelines laid down by the Railway Board.

4. The Applicant has also filed MA.No.457/2018 wherein he states as follows: i. This Tribunal, while admitting the O.A.No.650/2018, passed orders, dt.09.07.2018, to the effect that any appointments will be subject to the result of the original application. Feeling aggrieved by the same, W.P.No.23830 of 2018 was filed before the Hon'ble High Court at Hyderabad and the Hon'ble High Court disposed of the said writ petition on 12.07.2018, with the following direction: "liberty is granted to the petitioner to place some relevant documents before the Tribunal and thereafter, the respondent shall file comprehensive counter affidavit to the O.A. as well as the material that may be placed on behalf of the petitioner.”

ii. Pursuant to the said direction of the Hon'ble High Court, the applicant filed documents to show that he is more meritorious than M.Sai Prasad and K. Madhu, who had been selected to the post of TC. iii. It is submitted that the applicant had secured 65.5 marks in the written test whereas M. Sai Prasad and K. Madhu had secured 66 & 65.5 marks, respectively. He obtained the answer sheet of the written test under the RTI Act, 2005, wherein the selection committee had not assigned marks to Part-B, Question No.9 of III, though the applicant has given the right answer. Thereby, he is deprived of two marks. Had the selection committee awarded 2 marks to the above question, he would have

Location:

PANDIRLAPA LLI SANDHYA

secured 67.5 marks, thereby placing him above these two candidates in the overall ranking.

5. On notice, Respondents have filed their reply statement wherein they have averred as follows: i. It is submitted that a notification, vide No. WPY/612/TC/Sele/16 2/3% Quota (27), dt. 28.03.2016, was issued for selection for promotion to the post of Ticket Collectors in PB-1, scale 5200-20200 with Grade Pay of Rs.1900, against 162/3% quota in the Commercial Department, for filling up 12 vacancies, with the breakup of 08/UR+02/SC+02/ST, in the Ticket Collectors category in the Commercial Department. ii. The names of eligible/ineligible staff were circulated, vide Office Ir. No. WPY/612/TC/Sele/16 2/3% Quota (27), dt. 13.04.2017. iii. Aggrieved with the above eligible/in-eligible list, some of the candidates gave a joint representation, dt.22.11.2017, to the DRM stating that the notification included the Group-D staff of the Operating Department in the zone of consideration, which is against the principles laid down by the Railway Board and requested to issue a fresh notification, confining it only to the staff of the Commercial Department. iv. The representation of the applicant was referred to the PCPO/BBS for clarification which approved the action taken by the Division in allowing the eligible Group - D staff from the Operating Department, apart from the eligible staff from the Commercial Department. Thereafter, as per paras 3.4.4 and 3.4.5 of the Railway Rules and

Location:

PANDIRLAPA LLI SANDHYA

Guidelines, communicated under CPO GRC SE Rly Estt Srl. No.266/1999, dt.28.10.1999, the following members were nominated by the Competent Authority to the Selection Committee, for conducting the above selection:- Sr.Divl. Operations Manager : Jr. Administrative Grade (Movement)

(Paper Evaluator) Sr.Divl. Material Manager : Jr. Administrative Grade (Reserved Category)

Divl. Personnel Officer : Sr. Scale (Personnel Department) Divl. Commercial Manager : Sr. Scale with independent charge; (Co-ordination) Co-opted Member (Paper setter)

v. Respondents have stated that, as a matter of fact, for the impugned selection, a Committee consisting of Sr. Scale Officers could have been constituted. However, due to non-availability of two Sr. Scale officers of the Transport/Concerned department at the material point of time, a Committee with Jr. Administrative Officers was constituted by the competent authority, as per para 3.5 of the Establishment Serial No. 266/1999. The nominated Senior Scale Officer with independent charge, i.e., the Divisional Commercial Manager(Coordination), is in no way subordinate or reporting to the other nominated Jr. Administrative Grade (JAG) Officers, as the said Jr. Administrative Officers are from other departments, viz., Operating and Stores departments, and, as such, the question of subordination to any other committee member does not arise. vi. It is clarified that the Divisional Commercial Manager(Co-ordination) has independent charge and his APARs are reported by the Divisional Railway Manager, like the other two officers and he is in no way

Location:

PANDIRLAPA LLI SANDHYA

subordinate to any Jr. Administrative Officer of the said Committee. Hence, the contention of the applicant that the Three Member Committee, nominated the DCM(Co-ordination) as the 4thMember though he was subordinate to other members of the Board, i.e., Sr.DOM and Sr.DMM, is denied. The contention of the applicant that, only a Three Member Committee was nominated, excluding the DCM(Coordination), as the 4thmember, is baseless. vii. It is stated that the applicant, on being found eligible for the selection, attended the written test conducted on 20.01.2018 & 27.01.2018 and qualified in the written test along with other 42 candidates. However, he could not come out successful in the subsequent selection for empanelment of Ticket Collectors. The applicant, knowingly or unknowingly, is now mis-interpreting the rules and trying to take advantage, out of surmises and conjectures. The applicant was instrumental in filing OA No.64/2018 before this Tribunal. Having failed to get the relief that he wanted, he has filed the instant OA just to disrupt the proceedings, knowing fully well that he has not been selected. The OA is not maintainable purely on technical grounds as the applicant, after finding himself not selected, is raising the issue of legality of the Selection Board which is not tenable.

6. The Applicant has filed a rejoinder, reiterating the submissions already made in the OA and the MA. Taking forward his objection to the composition of the Selection Board, it is contended by the Counsel for the Applicant in his written arguments that the DCM(Co-Ord), Sri G. Suneel Kumar, is a Senior

Location:

PANDIRLAPA LLI SANDHYA

Scale Officer, who is junior and subordinate in rank in relation to the other member, Sr.DOM, Sri K.V.S.R.K.Kishore, IRTS, who is a Junior Administrative Grade Officer, and is of a Senior/Superior Rank Officer. Both the officers belong to the Traffic & Commercial Departments of the Indian Railways. In support of the contention/pleadings, the Applicant has submitted the Seniority List to show that Sri K.V.S.R.K. Kishore, Sr.DOM, JAG officer of the Traffic Department is placed at Sr. No 10, while Sri Geddam Suneel Kumar, Senior Scale Officer, is placed at Sl.No.18. According to the applicant, the above position establishes the fact that the DCM (Co-Ord) is a subordinate officer and, thus, there is every likelihood of his getting dominated and influenced by the decisions of the senior member, leading to violation of the principles of natural justice. Hence, the entire selection proceedings are liable to be quashed and set aside on this vital and essential ground alone.

7. The point regarding marks not being awarded to the applicant in Part-B/ Question-III/9, is also reiterated. Further, MA.130 of 2019 has been filed by the applicant, praying for an amendment for grant of alternative relief by declaring the Applicant as a selected candidate and directing the Respondents to take suitable steps for incorporating his name at the appropriate place in the selected panel, on the basis of the marks.

8. Heard both the parties and perused the materials placed on record.

9. It is to be noted that the initial relief was sought by questioning the formation of the Selection Board for selection of candidates for promotion to the post

Location:

PANDIRLAPA LLI SANDHYA

of TC/ECCA for which list of eligible candidates along with those who were not eligible as well as staff who were provisionally eligible was circulated, vide communication, dt.26.04.2017, of the office of DRM(Per.) East Coast Railway, Waltair. The Syllabus & Question Bank for the written test for selection to the promotional post had already been circulated. The relevant guidelines for constitution of the Selection Board and its purpose are given in the Indian Railway Establishment Manual, Vol-I, (Revised Edition- 1989), which reads as follows: “217. Selection Boards

(a) Selection Boards shall be constituted for the purpose of making recommendations to the competent authority in respect of the Railway servant considered by it as suitable for filling a selection post.

(b) Selection Boards may be constituted under the orders of the General Manager or Head of the Department or other competent authority, not lower than a Divisional Railway Manager/Addl. Divisional Railway Manager/Chief Workshop Manager.

(Railway Board’s letter No. E(NG)I/98/PM1/43 dt. 22.5.2000)

218. Constitution of Selection Boards

(a) Selection Boards shall consist of not less than three officers, one of whom should be a Personnel Officer and one of the Members should be from a Department other than that for which selection is held. The presence of a Personnel Officer in the Selection Boards along with two officers from the Department for which selection is held would meet the requirement of an officer being from a Department other than that for which selection is held.

(Railway Board’s letters No. E(NG)I/95/PM1/14 dated 03.03.98)

(b) When a Selection Board consist of only three Officers, none of the members be directly subordinate to any other.

(c) For selection posts in scale of pay Rs.5500-9000(RSRP) and above, the Selection Boards will consist of officers of Junior Administrative Grade. For all other selection posts the Selection Board will consist of officers not lower in rank than senior scale. In either case, except in the case of selection for Personnel Department, the Selection Board may include a Personnel Officer in the next lower rank who shall nevertheless be an equal member of the Selection Board.

Note: In Divisions where JA Grade officers are not available in the concerned Department, JA Grade Officers of any other Department may be nominated as the members of the Selection Board, the senior scale

Location:

PANDIRLAPA LLI SANDHYA

officer in independent charge of the concerned Department, who will not be subordinate to any other Member of the Selection Board, being nominated as the fourth Member who will also sign the selection proceedings. In the case of selection for Personnel Department if there is no JA Grade officer in the Personnel Department of a Division and the post is Divisionally controlled, in addition to the senior scale personnel officer of the Division, a JA Grade officer of the adjoining Division or of the Headquarters may be included in the Selection Board.

(Board’s letter Nos.E(NG)I/95/PM1/14 dated 3.3.98 and 15.3.99)

219. Procedure to be adopted by Selection Board (a) When a Selection post is to be filled, the authority empowered to constitute a Selection Board shall direct to the Board to assemble and make recommendations. It shall also nominate the Officer who shall act as the Chairman of the Board. The responsibility for selection will be of all members.

(b) An officer of the concerned Department who is also a member of the Selection Board must be authorized to set the question paper for written test, held as part of the selection for determining the professional ability. Where possible another officer of the concerned Department who is also a member of the Selection Board should be nominated to evaluate the answer books ensuring, however, that the answer books are invariably evaluated by a Member-Officer of the Department for which Selection is held. The test should be conducted on a confidential system with Roll numbers.

(Railway Board’s letter No. E(NG)I/95/PM1/14 dt. 3.3.98 and 07-08-03)”

10. The point of argument is that one Member, out of four, viz., the DCM (Co- ord), a Sr.Scale Officer, was junior and subordinate in rank to another Member, viz., Sr.DOM, an IRTS Officer in the Junior Administrative Grade. According to the applicant, as per the seniority list of Sr.Scale and J.A.G. Officers of the Traffic Department of the East Coast Railway in the Waltair Division, supplied in response to his RTI application, the DCM(Co-ord) is shown at Sl.No.18, whereas the Sr.Divl.Operations Manager (Sr.DOM), K.V.S.R.K.Kishore, in JAG (Adhoc), is at Sl.No.10 and, therefore, the latter is in a position to influence the DCM (Co-ord). According to him, such a situation will seriously compromise the independence of the Junior Member and, therefore, the whole procedure of selection was vitiated.

Location:

PANDIRLAPA LLI SANDHYA

11. Per contra, Respondents have argued that there was no error or anomaly in the appointment of the members as the Selection Board had been constituted by the Competent Authority, as per the Railway Rules and Guidelines under CPO GRC SE Rly Estt Srl No.266/1999. It is also submitted that the Junior Administrative Grade officers were from other departments, namely, Operating and Stores Depts., and, as such, the question of subordination to them does not arise in respect of the DCM (Co-ord). Railway Rules referred to by the Respondents are as follows: “3.4.4 For Selection to posts in scale 5500-9000 and above, the Selection Board should consist of officers in Junior Administrative Grade. For other selections, the Selection Board members can be in Senior Scale. However, in cases of selections other than those pertaining to Personnel department, the Personnel Officers in the committee can be one grade lower, i.e., in a committee of JAG officers, the Personnel Officer can be in Senior Scale and in a committee of Senior Scale officers, the Personnel Officers can be in Junior Scale/Group 'B'.

(PARA 218(c) of IREM and Board's letter No. E(NG)I/95/PM1/14 dt. 15/3/99)

3.4.5. In divisions where the Senior Scale officers are in independent charge of the department the constitution of the Selection Board for selections to posts in scale 5500-9000 will be as under:- (Note below Para 218(c) of IREM)

(i) Other than Personnel Department:

JAG officers from any other department in the division can be nominated. Senior Scale Officer in independent charge of the department who should not be subordinate to any other member of the Board will be the fourth member of the Board.”

12. There is a categorical submission in the reply affidavit that the Divisional Commercial Manager (Co-ord) holds independent charge and the Divisional Railway Manager is the Reporting Officer for him and, like the other two Members, he, too, is not subordinate to any other Member of the Committee. It is also denied that the Board of four members was effectively a three- member Committee.

Location:

PANDIRLAPA LLI SANDHYA

13. There is an MA seeking amendment to the main relief, in order to declare the applicant as selected. It has been argued that his answer sheet has not been marked properly, whereby he has lost his chance to be selected. Had he received 2 more marks, he would have overtaken two other candidates, viz., Sai Prasad and K.Madhu, who had secured 66 & 65.5 marks, respectively, as the applicant had also secured 65.5 marks. He has claimed that he should have got at least 2 marks more in Part-B of the Question Paper against Question No.9 of III. It is obvious that the issue of marking in the examination has been added, subsequently.

14. By interfering with the method of selection, including the method of marking, as prayed for by the Applicant, this Tribunal would be venturing into an area that has been frowned upon by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. In CA.No.4970 of 2017, in U.P.Public Service Commission through its Chairman & Anr. v. Sunil Kumar Singh & Ors., the Apex Court held, in its order, dt.05.08.2026, as follows – “4. According to Ms. Girdhar, the directions issued by the High Court are in the teeth of a catena of decisions of this Court and cannot be sustained in law. One of the decisions relied on by her in support of her contentions is Ran Vijay Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh. This Court held that:

30. The law on the subject is therefore, quite clear and we only propose to highlight a few significant conclusions. They are:

30.1. If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination permits the re-evaluation of an answer sheet or scrutiny of an answer sheet as a matter of right, then the authority conducting the examination may permit it; 30.2. If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination does not permit re-evaluation or scrutiny of an answer sheet (as distinct from prohibiting it) then the court may permit re-evaluation or scrutiny only if it is demonstrated very clearly, without any

Location:

PANDIRLAPA LLI SANDHYA

"inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalisation" and only in rare or exceptional cases that a material error has been committed; 30.3. The court should not at all re-evaluate or scrutinise the answer sheets of a candidate-it has no expertise in the matter and academic matters are best left to academics; 30.4. The court should presume the correctness of the key answers and proceed on that assumption; and 30.5. In the event of a doubt, the benefit should go to the examination authority rather than to the candidate.

5. Having perused the impugned order, particularly in the light of the law laid down by this Court in Ran Vijay Singh (supra) where various decisions of the High Court are found to have been disapproved, the High Court in our considered view exceeded the jurisdiction of a judicial review court in its interference with the decision of experts in the academic field. The manner of examination of the so-called dubious questions pertaining to different topics by the High Court, as if it were an expert of experts, and in making the directions it did are clearly indefensible.” (emphasis supplied)

15. Further, it is found that the applicant, having failed to pass the selection process, has come up with one ground after the other to protest against the same. The law in this regard is also well settled. In the judgment, dt.12th Dec., 2022, the Hon’ble Apex Court, has decided in the CA.Nos.8822-8823 of 2022, The State of Uttar Pradesh v. Karunesh Kumar & Ors., that – “21. ………59. It is also a settled position that the unsuccessful candidates cannot turn back and assail the selection process. There are of course the exceptions carved out by this Court to this general rule. This position was reiterated by this Court in its latest judgment in Union of India v. S. Vinodh Kumar [(2007) 8 SCC 100 : (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 792] ….The Court also referred to the judgment in Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla [1986 Supp SCC 285 : 1986 SCC (L&S) 644], where it has been held specifically that when a candidate appears in the examination without protest and subsequently is found to be not successful in the examination, the question of entertaining the petition challenging such examination would not arise.”

Location:

PANDIRLAPA LLI SANDHYA

16. From the above discussions, it is clear that there is no weight in the arguments of the applicant regarding constitution of the Selection Board, nor does he have any locus to challenge the marking of his answer sheet. Further, questioning the position secured by other candidates, without arraying them as necessary parties, cannot be allowed. Thus, the OA is found to be without any merits and is, accordingly, dismissed. Interim order, dt.09.07.2018, is vacated. Pending MAs, if any, stand closed. No order as to costs.

(Varun Sindhu Kul Kaumudi)

(Manish Garg) Administrative Member

Judicial Member

13.10.2026

/ps/

Location:

PANDIRLAPA LLI SANDHYA