Judgment:
Khushiram, Member (A):
Both the applicants are working as Mill Wright Mechanic Technician Gr.I and III respectively and claim to have unblemished service record. On 5.8.2010, three posts of J.E.(Grade-II) against 25% IMA quota were advertised for unreserved category with age limit upto 47 years as on 9.6.2010 and candidates must have been working as Technician Gr.III or Technician Gr.II on this date. Applicants applied for the same. Thirty one candidates including the present applicants were found eligible. The respondents decided to conduct the written examination on 16.11.2010 which was postponed to 30.11.2010 and again to 21.1.2011 and finally the same was conducted on 14.2.2011. The result was announced on 18.3.2011 and out of 31 candidates, only three candidates qualified the written test. There was no interview and merit was the sole criteria. The names of the applicants appeared at sr.No.2 and 3 in the result declared and thus they were fully hopeful of being put on the panel of JE Gr.II. However, on 7.5.2011, the result was cancelled vide Annexure A-1 without disclosure of any reason. Those who appeared in the selection and even could not qualify made a representation dated 21.4.2011 to the Deputy Chief Personnel Officer for making promotions of those candidates who had already qualified.
2. The applicants came to know that one Shri Kamal Kishore whose questions has not been evaluated and after evaluation, his marks were increased from 54 to 60, thus, making him qualified in the written test held on 14.2.2011 result of which was declared on 18.3.2011 (Annexure A-6). The representation filed by the three earlier qualified candidates on 16.5.2011 was rejected by a non-speaking order on 24.5.2011 (Annexure A-2). However, instead of finalizing the selection as per result declared on 18.3.2011, the respondents again conducted a written test on 27.5.2011 in which the applicants also appeared as the earlier selection was cancelled.
3. On 6.6.2011, the applicants came to know the reasons for cancellation received the information under R.T.I.Act. Had this information been available with them earlier, they would not have appeared in the subsequent selection, but because of the delay in supply of the requisite information to the applicants under R.T.I.Act, the respondents again conducted written test on 27.5.2011 on the basis of which four candidates (except applicants) have been selected for appearing in IInd part of selection process vide order dated 29.6.2011. Aggrieved by the decision of the respondents, the applicants have filed the present O.A to seek the following relief:-
“i) That Annexures A-1 dated 7.5.2011, Annexure A-2 dated 24.5.2011 and Annexure A-7 dated 17.5.2011 be quashed and set aside and it be declared that applicant is entitled to be considered for promotion as J.E. Grade II in pursuance of result declared on 18.3.2011 from amongst 4 qualified candidates as per the merit.”
4. The applicants have further prayed that the respondents be restrained from acting upon the result of the written test held on 27.5.2011 declared on 29.6.2011 and with a further prayer for restraining the respondents from declaring the result of the written test held on 27.5.2011 and from finalizing the selection on the basis of written test held on 27.5.2011.
5. The Tribunal while issuing notice of motion on 25.7.2011, by way of interim relief, directed the respondents that the result of the written test shall be subject to the final outcome of this O.A.
6. The respondents have filed short reply by stating therein that the criteria for the selection to the post of Junior Engineer against 25% quota comprises of written test and scrutiny of service record. The final panel is on the basis of the merit obtained by the candidate in the selection. The respondents have further stated that the written test was cancelled due to some irregularities in the evaluation of answer sheets of one of the candidates who submitted his representation after obtaining his answer sheet through RTI and there is no provision of re-evaluation of answer sheets as per existing policy of Railway Board. They have further stated that the written test for the selection was again conducted and the applicants had participated in the written test but could not pass the same (Annexure R-1). Since the applicants had participated in the selection held de-novo, therefore, their case suffers from the principle of Estoppel. They have thus prayed for dismissal of the O.A.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record.
8. The learned counsel for the respondents has drawn our attention to a judgment dated March 30, 2012 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in O.A.NO.627/PB/2011 (Gurcharan Singh versus Union of India and Another) wherein the applicant Gurcharan Singh had also impugned the same orders as have been impugned by the applicants in the present O.A.
9. In view of order dated 30.3.2012 passed in the case of Gurcharan Singh (supra), this O.A is found to be devoid of any merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs.