Hon'ble KAUR, J.— Both the writ petitions are being disposed of by the common order as the impugned order is same.

2. The present writ petition has been filed against the judgment and order dated 16th April, 2013 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal vide which both the above Original Applications were allowed and the Annexure-A/1 by which the entire process of examination was cancelled stood quashed with a direction to the respondent department to act further upon the selection process.

3. A notification came to be issued for organizing a selection to the post of Junior Engineer-II (Signal) Pay Band of 9300-34800 + 4200 Grade Pay against 20% intermediate apprentice quota. The applications were invited vide notification dated 6th Sept., 2010 from eligible candidates against three available vacancies in the aforesaid quota. Both the respondents namely Manoj Kumar Sharma and Rajendra Kumar Meena submitted their applications to the aforesaid notification. Both of them appeared for the written examination and qualified the same for paper screening for selection to the post of Junior Engineer-II (Signal). A provisional panel of 3 candidates only for the post of Junior Engineer-II (Signal) was declared on 15th April, 2011, wherein the name of Manoj Kumar Sharma appeared at S.No. 1, name of Rajendra Kumar Meena appeared at S.No. 2 and name of one Parmeshwar Kumar appeared at S.No. 3. They were asked to join initial course for promotion to the post of Junior Engineer-II (Signal) from 2nd May, 2011 till 24th June, 2011 and were accordingly sent for line training at Kuchaman City. Thereafter, they were asked to attend initial course for the post of Junior Engineer (Signal), Intermediate, Phase II w.e.f. 11th July, 2011 to 9th Sept. 2011 and were deputed for field training at Makrana Station.

4. Subsequently, on 10th February, 2012, the entire panel which comprised of only 3 candidates was cancelled on account of certain irregularities found in the selection process. Both the respondents filed Original Applications before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur. The learned Tribunal allowed the Original Applications vide judgment and order dated 16.4.2013 on the ground that no irregularity was found in the working report of respondents Manoj Kumar Sharma and Rajendra Kumar Meena and nor any irregularity was found in the evaluation of the answer-sheet. The Original Applications were allowed in view of the law laid down in the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of UOI & Ors. vs. Rajesh P.U., Puthuvalnikathu and Anr. reported in 2003(7) SCC 285. The said order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal is challenged by the respondent department through the present writ petitions on the ground that the selection was cancelled by the competent authority keeping in view the various irregularities in the entire selection procedure which included-

(i) In the notification dated 6.9.2010, condition regarding two papers was not notified but as the time of written examination without pre-intimation examination was conducted in two parts.

(ii) Officer who evaluated Answer Sheet made some mistakes during the evaluation which can be seen from copy of Shri Parmesh Kumar. He was given marks 59 in first paper and 61 marks in second paper. After scrutiny of Answer Sheet, it was found that total marks in first paper were 49 and 61 in second paper. Shri Parmesh Kumar was not eligible to be considered for screening because he failed in written examination.

(iii) Selection Committee did not follow procedure for selection as per Railway Board's direction. APAR is to be considered for Railway Employee for whom APAR is maintained.

(iv) Working report has been prepared for three years by supervisors and officer concerned under whom the employee was working at that point of time, without ensuring that working report should be prepared by supervisor and officer for the period railway employee was working under them. APAR of Shri Raje