Ajay Bankelal Yadav vs M/o Railways on 27 October 2026

ORDER

Per: Shri Umesh Gajankush, Member (J)

The present OA has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking following reliefs:

(a) The Hon’ble Tribunal will be pleased to call for the records of the case and after going through its propriety, legality and constitutional validity be pleased to order and direct the respondents to grant Full Marks for Question No.44, No.75 and No.95 with consequential benefits of appointment from the date his Batch-mates were appointed in service with the benefit of pay fixation, seniority, back wages etc.

(b) This Hon’ble Tribunal will be pleased to call for the record which led to the cancellation of Question No.44 and after going through its propriety, legality and constitutional validity be pleased to quash and set aside the same with further direction to the respondents to grant FULL MARKS to the applicant for the said Q.No.44.

(c) This Hon’ble Tribunal will further be pleased to order and direct the respondents to consider and appoint the applicant in appropriate post after he is granted appropriate marks to either Question No.44 or 75 or 95.

(d) Any other or further order or orders as this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit, proper and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case.

(e) Costs of this Original Application may be provided for.”

2. Brief facts, as stated in the OA, are that pursuant to Notification No.02/2012 issued by the Office of respondent No.2 for filling up Group ‘D’ posts in Western Railways, the applicant, being eligible, applied for the same in Other Backward

Location:

Alphanso

Class (OBC) category. In response thereto, the applicant was issued call letter to appear at the written examination scheduled on 24.11.2013 and on being successful at the said examination, the applicant was called upon to appear at the Physical Examination Test (PET) which was scheduled on 14.03.2014. The applicant, accordingly, appeared and qualified the said test. 2.1 It is stated that as per the Notification, selection was based on written examination followed by physical efficiency test which was in qualifying nature only. Those who qualified written examination and physical efficiency test were to be called for document verification and medical test. There was no interview. Final panel would be based on merit. 2.2 It is stated that having been declared qualified at physical efficiency test, the applicant was expected to receive a call for document verification and medical test. However, he came to know that some persons, who appeared alongwith him at physical efficiency test, were

Location:

Alphanso called for document verification. It appears that his name did not find place in the list of candidates for purpose of medical examination and document verification. Therefore, the applicant submitted an application under Right to Information Act, 2005 on 09.04.2014 to know the reasons. However, the applicant was denied the information by the APO (Recruitment) on the ground that as per the Recruitment Rules, Group ‘D’ posts against Employment Notice No.02/2012 is still under process. The information asked for cannot be given at this stage. 2.3 Another application dated 26.06.2014 was filed seeking information and certified copy of the OMR, merit list, cut off marks of meritorious OBC candidates. The same was denied through letter dated 03.07.2014 on the ground that recruitment to the Group ‘D’ posts against Employment Notice No.02/2012 is still under process. Aggrieved by the denial of information sought by him, he has preferred appeal dated 25.07.2014 and in response to which communication dated 15.09.2014 was issued.

Location:

Alphanso

2.4 It is stated that the applicant was informed that he had secured only 54.64% marks whereas the cut off marks for OBC for document verification was 56.67% marks. So far supply of OMR sheet is concerned, the applicant was informed to visit the office of Railway Recruitment Cell during working hours to inspect his OMR sheet. On perusal, the applicant came to know that “NO MARKS” were given to the answers to the question Nos.44,75 and

95. It is evident from the copy of the answer sheet (received by invocation of RTI Act) supplied to the applicant. Further, Advocate’s notice dated 28.02.2015 was also issued seeking redressal of applicant’s grievance. Thereafter, reply dated 26.03.2015 was given by APO (RRC) informing that all questions carried equal marks and that the OMR being confidential copy of the same cannot be given. 2.5 It is stated that being aggrieved due to the impugned action of the respondents, not checking/marking the answer book in a legal and proper manner resulting in denial of appropriate marks for question Nos.44, 75 and 95 resulted in

Location:

Alphanso

‘Non-Selection’ of the applicant and, therefore, the present OA has been filed. 2.6 In OA, according to the applicant, following answers have been given by the applicant which were correct:

(i) Q.No.44-Which Hindi movie had made the record of highest earning in domestic market? (A)Yesh Jawani Hai Deewani (B) Ek Tha Tiger (C)Chennai Express (D)Sholay Ans:(C)Chennai Express

(ii) Q.No.75-Which one of the following planets is called ‘Red Planet’. (A)Jupiter (B) Mars (C)Venus (D) Mercury Ans:(B) Mars

(iii) Q.No.95-Brahma Samaj was founded by: (A) Swami Dayananda (B) Ishwar Chandra Vidyasagar (C)Raja Ram Mohan Roy (D)Narayan Guru Ans:(C)Raja Ram Mohan Roy

2.7 It is also stated that earlier the applicant had filed OA No.453/2015. However, due to lack of jurisdiction, the said OA was withdrawn vide order dated 31.03.2016. In the said OA, the respondents had filed reply on 10.03.2016. From the

Location:

Alphanso said reply, it is learnt that the respondents have cancelled the question No.44.

3. After notice, the official respondents have filed their reply and contested the OA. 3.1 It is stated that the action of the respondents is strictly in accordance with law and no right of the applicant is violated by the respondent. Out of the total 100 questions of RRC’s written exam held on 24.11.2013 against E.N.No.2/12 dated 27.09.2012, the two questions (Question Nos.44 & 66) were cancelled by RRC and, as such, marks of the candidates were evaluated only for 98 questions. Total marks of 100 questions were distributed accordingly. Cancellation of question prior to evaluation was made as per the instructions of Railway Board’s letter dated 09.06.2011 (Annexure R-1). Out of total 98 questions, the applicant had attempted 73 questions, out of which, 56 were correct answers, 17 wrong answers and 25 questions were left blank (not attempted). 3.2 As contended by the applicant that no marks are given by RRC to questions No.44, 75 and 95

Location:

Alphanso

attempted by him, it is submitted that question No.44 was cancelled by RRC. The said written test was held on 24.11.2013 and in the month of November, there were news in the media that Krish-3 had broken the record of Chennai Express, some reports of that period i.e. prior to written test, ‘Name of the said movie’ i.e Krish-3 was not in the option. Therefore, the question No.44 was cancelled. Question No.75 was correctly evaluated. To respond the grievance of applicant against question No.95, RRC would like to submit to brief about the relevant evaluation procedure as under: “Evaluation is done by computerized Optional Marking Reader Machine (OMR). The machine only recognizes bubbles. If any question has more than one bubbled answers, even another one is smaller also, machine reads as more than one bubble and then it is marked as multiple answer and error and treated as wrong answer. 3.3 It is submitted that as per the instruction No.10 printed on backside of OMR sheet, candidates were informed that 1/3rd of the allotted mark will

Location:

Alphanso be deducted for every wrong answer/multiple answer. In answer to question No.95, the applicant has bubbled one option fully and one partially, therefore, machine has marked it as error. So the said three questions were rightly evaluated, like all other candidates. As such, the contention of the applicant, that RRC has not checked and marked the answer books in a legal or proper manner, is not correct and not accepted. 3.4 It is submitted that after qualifying physical efficiency test, applicant did not obtain required marks to be called for document verification as the next step towards recruitment process. Out of total 100 questions of RRC-WR’s written exam dated 24.11.2013 against E.N.No.2/12, question Nos.44 and 66 were cancelled and marks of the candidates were evaluated only for questions. Cancellation of question prior to evaluation was made in terms of Board’s letter dated 09.06.2011. Out of 98 questions, the applicant attempted 73 questions out of which 56 were correct, 17 incorrect and 25 questions were not attempted by

Location:

Alphanso the applicant. As two questions were cancelled i.e. question Nos.44 and 66, question No.75 attempted by the applicant was correctly evaluated. However, in answer to question No.95, the applicant had bubbled one option fully and the another one partially, which was marked as error by the evaluating machine. In view of this, as the applicant has secured less marks than the cut off marks of the OBC community, he was not selected for the next step of recruitment process that is document verification. 3.5 It has been further submitted that Railway Recruitment Board and Railway Recruitment Cell are conducting recruitment on massive scale. In this particular Notification, 3,29,930 applications were received out of that 2,82,365 are found eligible (UR-74081, OBC-84066, SC – 88404 & ST-35814) candidates became eligible for examinations. To ensure transparent and fair conduct of recruitment examinations, its planning and preparation starts few months in advance. Availability of time slots with confidential printing agency, setting of question papers, confidential and safe

Location:

Alphanso transportation of paper and various related activities are time consuming process. So questions are set few months in advance. Sometimes due to time gap between setting of question paper and date of examination, answer gets changed. Exactly the same has happened in this case when paper was set few months in advance and the record was changed just 6-7 days prior to the exam. Sometimes questions become wrong due to some other reasons such as calculation error of mathematical question etc. Therefore, due to various reasons, sometimes some question becomes wrong. It is not limited to the said examination of Railway Recruitment Cell, Western Railway. From the circular of Railway Board No.1010/E(RRB)/25/27 Pt. dated 09.06.2011, it is clear that this issue is common to all Railway Recruitment Boards and Railway Recruitment Cells. Basically, it happens with all recruitment conducting/exam conducting agencies viz Staff Selection Commission, State PSC’s, Universities etc. In this situation, recruitment agencies deals the question in a predefined manner. The

Location:

Alphanso

instruction of Ministry of Railway dated 09.06.2011 (i.e 2 years 5 months and 15 days prior to the written test) is being uniformly followed by 21 Railway Recruitment Boards and

Railway Recruitment Cells. Till date, the methodology might have been applied on hundred of examinations, dealing crores of candidates. So strictly following this instructions, the question was cancelled and evaluations have been made. 3.6 Therefore, on the basis of reply, the respondents have prayed for dismissal of the OA.

4. Thereafter, rejoinder and sur-rejoinder were filed by the parties reiterating and elaborating their stand.

5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. Shri Walia, learned counsel for the applicant vehemently argued that in pursuance of Employment Notice, the applicant participated in the written examination and physical efficiency test. However, he was not called for document verification and medical examination whereas other

Location:

Alphanso candidates were called, then he has sought information under the RTI Act, 2005, through which, he has received the copy of the OMR sheet and also the cut off marks in respect of OBC candidate. It is submitted that three questions i.e. question Nos.44, 75 and 95 which were not assessed by the examining body properly and, according to the applicant, answers given by him to the aforesaid questions were correct, under these circumstances, if the proper marks are awarded then the applicant could have crossed the cut off marks for the OBC candidate and consequently, could be appointed to the Group ‘D’ post under OBC category. 6.1 During course of the arguments, learned counsel vehemently argued that so far as question No.44 is concerned, he has rightly answered Chennai Express whereas after the examination the respondents have considered the highest earning of Hindi movie in domestic market of KRISH- 3. when that answer was not available in the object type of question then how any candidate could answer that question. The examining authority was required to

Location:

Alphanso consider the options given in particular question and not beyond that. So far as question No.75 is concerned, the applicant has rightly answered Mars whereas on the basis of some extraneous material, the respondents have relied the correct answer as Jupiter. Further, in respect of question No.95, according to the applicant, he has rightly given answer (C)Raja Ram Mohan Roy and there was no double marking. Under these circumstances, due to improper awarding of marks, the applicant has been denied appointment. Therefore, the OA may be allowed and appropriate relief may be granted.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently argued that in cases of checking/marking of the answer books, there is limited scope of interference in the matter. 7.1 On the basis of reply, it is vehemently argued that RRC has cancelled question Nos.44 and 66 and as such marks of the candidates were evaluated only for 98 questions out of 100 questions. It is submitted that cancelled of question prior to evaluation was made as per the

Location:

Alphanso

instructions of Railway Board letter dated 09.06.2011. In respect of question No.95, the respondents have relied upon the instructions Annexure R-3 and clause 8 specifically provides that the manner of darkening of circle at appropriate place. Clause 10 further provides that in cases of one incorrect answer or more than one answer, 1/3 of the allotted marks will be deducted. Since in response to question No.95, the applicant has marked at two places i.e A and C and, therefore, the respondents have rightly awarded the marks. It is also submitted that in respect of question No.75 also, assessment was proper. Therefore, it is submitted that the OA is liable to be dismissed.

8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record, it is not in dispute that the Employment Notice No.02/2012 was issued by the respondents for filling up Group ‘D’ posts in Western Railways. It is also not in dispute that the applicant was participated in the selection process upto physical efficiency test, however, was not called for document verification

Location:

Alphanso and medical examination. In response to RTI information through communication (page No.42 of the OA), the respondents have informed to the applicant the cut off marks under the OBC category. It is also not in dispute that the applicant secured 54.64% marks whereas the cut off marks was 56.67% for OBC category. It is also not in dispute that the RRC itself has cancelled question Nos.44 and 66 and, therefore, evaluation was made only in respect to 98 questions. This process was adopted by the respondents for all the candidates who have participated in the said process and, therefore, the applicant cannot claim any award of marks in respect of said question and, therefore, it is not necessary to go into the fact that which movie was earned highest in domestic market and whether name of such movie was within options given in the question paper or outside the question paper. When the question itself was cancelled then the contention raised by the applicant has no force.

9. So far as question No.95 is concerned, the applicant himself has produced a photocopy of OMR

Location:

Alphanso sheet (Annexure A-6). When said OMR sheet is seen alongwith instruction Nos.8 and 10 of R-3, the claim made by the applicant is not tenable. In fact, the scrutiny of the OMR sheet was through machine and there was not any human intervention in the said process. In this context also, the interference by this Tribunal is not permissible.

10. So far as question No.75 is concerned, at the one hand, the applicant is claiming that right answer is Mars whereas the respondents are justifying Jupiter as right answer. Firstly, it is a matter within the domain of the experts. Even assuming that the answer of the applicant was correct then at the best, he could secure one more mark. In that situation, his total secured marks could be 55.64% which is less than 56.67%. On this ground also, no ground is made out for interference.

11. At this stage, it is relevant here to observe that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ran Vijay Singh and Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others, (2018) 2 SCC 357 dealt with the scope of judicial review in such matter. The relevant paragraphs are quoted

Location:

Alphanso hereinunder for ready reference : “18. A complete hands-off or no-interference approach was neither suggested in Mukesh Thakur nor has it been suggested in any other decision of this Court – the case law developed over the years admits of interference in the results of an examination but in rare and exceptional situations and to a very limited extent.

19. In Kanpur University Vs. Samir Gupta, (1983) 4 SCC 309 this Court took the view that: (SCC P.316, para 16) “…. the key answer should be assumed to be correct unless it is proved to be wrong and that it should not be held to be wrong by an inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalisation. It must be clearly demonstrated to be wrong, that is to say, it must be such as no reasonable body of men well-versed in the particular subject would regard as correct.”

In other words, the onus is on the candidate to clearly demonstrate that the key answer is incorrect and that too without any inferential process or reasoning. The burden on the candidate is therefore rather heavy and the constitutional courts must be extremely cautious in entertaining a plea challenging the correctness of a key answer. To prevent such challenges, this Court recommended a few steps to be taken by the examination authorities and among them are: (i) establishing a system of moderation; (ii) Avoid any ambiguity in the questions, including those that might be caused by translation; and (iii) prompt decision be taken to exclude the suspect question and no marks be assigned to it.

20. Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Vs. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth, (1984) 4 SCC 27 is perhaps the leading case on the subject and concerned itself with Regulation 104 of Maharashtra Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Boards Regulations, 1977 which reads : (SCC p. 37, para 10)

Location:

Alphanso

“104. Verification of marks obtained by a candidate in a subject.—

(1) Any candidate who has appeared at the Higher Secondary Certificate examination may apply to the Divisional Secretary for verification of marks in any particular subject. The verification will be restricted to checking whether all the answers have been examined and that there has been no mistake in the totalling of marks for marks correctly on the first cover page of the answer book and whether the supplements attached to the answer book mentioned by the candidate are intact. No revaluation of the answer book or supplements shall be done.

(2) Such an application must be made by the candidate through the head of the junior college which presented him for the examination, within two weeks of the declaration of the examination results and must be accompanied by a fee of Rs 10 for each subject.

(3) No candidate shall claim, or be entitled to revaluation of his answers or disclosure or inspection of the answer books or other documents as these are treated by the Divisional Board as most confidential.”

21. The question before this Court in Paritosh Bhupeshkumar case was: whether, under law, a candidate has a right to demand an inspection, verification and revaluation of answer books and whether the statutory regulations framed by the Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education governing the subject insofar as they categorically state that there shall be no such right can be said to be ultra vires, unreasonable and void.

22. This Court noted that the Bombay High Court, while dealing with a batch of 39 writ petitions, divided them into two groups:

(i) cases where a right of inspection of the answer sheets was claimed; (ii) Cases where a right of inspection and re-evaluation of answer sheets was claimed. With regard to the first group, the High Court held the above Regulation 104(3) as unreasonable and void and directed the concerned Board to allow inspection of the

Location:

Alphanso

answer sheets. With regard to the second group of cases, it was held that the above Regulation 104(1) was void, illegal and manifestly unreasonable and therefore directed that the facility of re- evaluation should be allowed to those examinees who had applied for it.

23. In appeal against the decision of the High Court, it was held by this Court in Paritosh Bhupeshkumar case that the principles of natural justice are not applicable in such cases. It was held that: (Paritosh Bhupeshkumar case, SCC p.38, para 12)

“12. ……The principles of natural justice cannot be extended beyond reasonable and rational limits and cannot be carried to such absurd lengths as to make it necessary that candidates who have taken a public examination should be allowed to participate in the process of evaluation of their performances or to verify the correctness of the evaluation made by the examiners by themselves conducting an inspection of the answer books and determining whether there has been a proper and fair valuation of the answers by the examiners.”

24. On the validity of the Regulations, this Court held that they were not illegal or unreasonable or ultra vires the rule-making power conferred by statute. It was then said: (Paritosh Bhupeshkumar case, scc p.42, para 16)

“16. …..The Court cannot sit in judgment over the wisdom of the policy evolved by the legislature and the subordinate regulation-making body. It may be a wise policy which will fully effectuate the purpose of the enactment or it may be lacking in effectiveness and hence calling for revision and improvement. But any drawbacks in the policy incorporated in a rule or regulation will not render it ultra vires and the Court cannot strike it down on the ground that, in its opinion, it is not a wise or prudent policy, but is even a foolish one, and that it will not really serve to effectuate the purposes of the Act. The legislature and its delegate are the sole repositories of the power to decide what policy should be pursued in relation to matters covered by the Act and there is no scope for interference by the Court unless the particular provision impugned before it can be said to suffer from any legal

Location:

Alphanso infirmity, in the sense of its being wholly beyond the scope of the regulation-making power or its being inconsistent with any of the provisions of the parent enactment or in violation of any of the limitations imposed by the Constitution. None of these vitiating factors are shown to exist in the present case…..”.

It was also noted by this Court that: (SCC p.52, para 22)

“22. ...the High Court has ignored the cardinal principle that it is not within the legitimate domain of the Court to determine whether the purpose of a statute can be served better by adopting any policy different from what has been laid down by the legislature or its delegate and to strike down as unreasonable a bye-law (assuming for the purpose of discussion that the impugned regulation is a bye-law) merely on the ground that the policy enunciated therein does not meet with the approval of the Court in regard to its efficaciousness for implementation of the object and purposes of the Act.”

25. Upholding the validity of Regulation 104, this Court then proceeded on the basis of the plain and simple language of the Regulation to hold that: (Paritosh Bhupeshkumar case, SCC p.48, para 20)

“20. …The right of verification conferred by clause (1) is subject to the limitation contained in the same clause that no revaluation of the answer books or supplements shall be done and the further restriction imposed by clause (3), prohibiting disclosure or inspection of the answer books.”

This Court then concluded the discussion by observing: (SCC pp.56-57, para 29)

“29. …. As has been repeatedly pointed out by this Court, 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

Location:

Alphanso of educational institutions and the departments controlling them. It will be wholly wrong for the Court to make a pedantic and purely idealistic approach to the problems of this nature, isolated from the actual realities and grass root problems involved in the working of the system and unmindful of the consequences which would emanate if a purely idealistic view as opposed to a pragmatic one were to be propounded. It is equally important that the Court should also, as far as possible, avoid any decision or interpretation of a statutory provision, rule or bye-law which would bring about the result of rendering the system unworkable in practice. It is unfortunate that this principle has not been adequately kept in mind by the High Court while deciding the instant case.”

26. In Pramod Kumar Srivastava Vs. Bihar Public Service Commission, (2004) 6 SCC 714 the question under consideration was whether the High Court was right in directing re-evaluation of the answer book of a candidate in the absence of any provision entitling the candidate to ask for re-evaluation. This Court noted that there was no provision in the Rules concerned for re- evaluation but only a provision for scrutiny of the answer book “wherein the answer-books are seen for the purpose of checking whether all the answers given by a candidate has been any mistake in the totalling of marks of each questions and noting them correctly on the first cover page of the answer book. (Pramod Kumar Srivastava case, SCC pp 717-18, para

This Court reiterated the conclusion in Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth that : (SCC p. 718, para 7)

“7. … in the absence of a specific provision conferring a right upon an examinee to have his answer-books re- evaluated, no such direction can be issued.”

12. Thus, in view of the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the

Location:

Alphanso

aforesaid proposition of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, no case is made out for interference in the present OA. The same is accordingly, dismissed.

13. Pending MAs, if any, stand closed. No costs.

(Umesh Gajankush)

(Shri Krishna) Member (J) Member (A) ma.

Location:

Alphanso