ORDER :

(Per: Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, J.)

1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is preferred against order dated 19.09.2019 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as “Tribunal”) by which the Tribunal has allowed the Original Application filed by respondent no.1, quashing and setting aside the order passed by the official respondents. Official respondents upon receipt of a complaint by the respondent no.2, re-framed answer keys in respect of some of the questions and thereafter reevaluated the answers of the candidates including respondent— Anil Sharma and Krishan Swaroop Sharma which resulted in exclusion of Anil Sharma from the panel of select list and inclusion of Krishan Swaroop Sharma.

2. The factual backdrop which relate to filing of O.A. by Anil Sharma before the Tribunal was that Anil Sharma was selected for the post of Junior Engineer (E) in a Limited Departmental Competitive Examination held on 29.10.2010. As he was declared selected, he joined on the higher post after completion of training vide order dated 31.01.2012. However, a show cause notice dated 28.01.2013 was served on him disclosing that on the basis of complaint of Krishan Swaroop Sharma that some of the answer keys are incorrect and/or erroneous. A committee consisting of two JAG level officers other than those who were earlier included selection committee members, was constituted. The committee re-framed the answer keys and on the basis of re-framed answer keys candidates were again re-evaluated. The show cause notice was challenged by Anil Sharma (O.A. Applicant) but the petition was disposed off with liberty to file representation against show cause notice with a direction to official respondent to decide the same by reasoned and speaking order. Thereafter, a representation was preferred but ultimately, accepting the recommendation of the review committee which had re-framed some of the answer keys, re-evaluation was done resulting in ouster of Anil Sharma from the select list. This was challenged by filing Original Application before the Tribunal.

3. The challenge was based mainly on the ground that the exercise of re-evaluation done by the authorities was not only without there being any provision of re-evaluation under the scheme of examination but was otherwise erroneous, arbitrary and unfair. According to official respondents and the private respondent—Krishan Swaroop Sharma, when complaint was made, the review committee found that many key answers were either incorrect or were otherwise erroneous. This exercise was bona fide undertaken to remove the irregularity found in the process of selection and it was not a case of re-evaluation of the answers on the same set of answer keys. In some and substance, the case of official respondents was that it was essentially an exercise of course correction as the committee of experts found that many keys answer were either incorrect or were erroneous creating confusion.

4. Learned Tribunal, however, was of the view that the nature of exercise undertaken by official respondents was in essence reevaluation which was not permissible in the absence of there being any such provision contained in the Rule/Scheme governing the examination to which O.A. applicant—Anil Sharma and other candidate Krishan Swaroop Sharma were subjected. The Tribunal was also of the view that in the garb of review of key answers, many key answers were re-framed by adding some more options which was completely unfair and otherwise not permissible in law. On such findings, the Tribunal set aside the orders in proceedings of re-evaluation allowing the Original Application of Anil Sharma.

5. Assailing correctness and validity of the order of the Tribunal, Ld. counsel appearing for Railways would argue that the Tribunal completely misdirected itself in assuming t