CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH Original Application No.169/2015 Pronounced on : 12.01.2026 Reserved on : 12.11.2025 CORAM :

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR VYAS, MEMBER (J)

HON’BLE DR. AMIT SAHAI, MEMBER (A)

Akhilesh Bhadu S/o Sh. Gulshan Bhadu, aged 26, resident of 118, Mahaveer Nagar, Near Reliance Tower, Kuri Bhagtasani Housing Board, Jodhpur.

…Applicant [By Advocate: Mr. K.K.Shah Versus

1. Union of India through General Manager, North Western Railways, Jaipur.

2. Railway Recruitment Cell, North Western Railway, Power House Road, Jaipur.

..Respondents [By Advocate: Mr. B.L.Bishnoi]

O R D E R

Per Rameshwar Vyas :

Being aggrieved by the communication dated 17^th April, 2015 (Annex.A/1), whereby, the applicant was informed that as per the revised result of the examination, prepared after noting error in computer programming, he is not eligible to be called for documents verification, the applicant has preferred this O.A. to quash and set aside the above communication and seeks a direction against the respondents to declare him eligible for documents verification.

2. Facts of the case in brief are as under :-

Vide Employment Notice No. 3/2013 dated 14^th December, 2013 J(IATEnNneDx.A/2), applications were invited from eligible persons from the open market to fill up the vacancies in Pay Band – 1 Scale Rs. 5,200- 20,200, with Grade Pay of Rs. 1,800/- in the North Western Railways for 917 posts including 27 for persons with disability (9 O.H., 9 V.H. and 9 H.H.) and 184 posts for Ex-serviceman. Pursuant to the above notification, the applicant applied for the post in OH category. He appeared in the written examination held on 2^nd November, 2014 and was declared successful as per Result-sheet Annex.A/3. Thereafter, vide communication dated 17^th April, 2015 (Annex.A/1) the applicant was informed that on account of error in the computer programming, the applicant has been wrongly shown as eligible for documents verification. The applicant does not stand on merit based on the marks obtained by him in comparison to other candidates, therefore, he is not eligible to be called for documents verification.

As per the case of the applicant, it is a clear manipulation in the results subsequently due to extraneous circumstances. There was no question of the applicant being ineligible for documents verification. The respondents have not shown how and in what manner the mistake was detected in the result of the examination. Once the applicant was declared eligible it was not open for the respondents to make him ineligible without giving him any notice. It was incumbent upon the respondents to have placed on record the marks obtained by the applicant and other candidates. In the absence of the same the action of the respondents seems to be tainted with mala fide and some extraneous circumstances.

3. As per reply and additional reply filed by the respondents the Advertisement dated 23.10.2015 was published in the newspaper wherein, cut off marks for OH category has been shown as 91.37% whereas, the applicant secured only 86.89% marks. The respondents have also placed on record marks-list Annex. R/3 dated 03.07.2017 of the candidates appeared in the examination. Due to programming error, the applicant was wrongly called for documents verification and thereafter vide letter dated 17^th April, 2015, he was immediately informed. In the Advertisement dated 14^th December, 2013 (Annex.A/2), it has been mentioned that only short-listed candidates will be called for documents verification. Since the applicant secured lower marks than the cut off marks, this O.A. is not sustainable.

4. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that once the applicant was called for documents verification, respondents could not revoke the above decision without issuing a prior notice to the applicant. The respondents did not disclose the computer error based upon which the decision to call the appl