Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi O.A. No. 4588/2025 Reserved on:- 28.11.2025 Pronounced on:- 11.12.2025 Hon’ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)

Hon’ble Mr. B. Anand, Member (A)

ANKIT S/o Ajmer R/o (97), Bass Badshahpur, Hisar, Haryana Email id: NA Mob No. 9416576078 ...Applicant (By Advocate: Mr. Abhijeet Saxena)

Versus

1. Union of India, through its Secretary Ministry of Railways, Rail Bhawan New Delhi.

Email id: uoicatpb@gmail.com

2. Railway Recruitment Control Board (RRCB)

Through its Director Rail Bhawan, Raisina Road, New Delhi – 110001.

3. Director General, Railway Protection Force Room No. 256-A, Rail Bhawan, Raisina Road, New Delhi-110001 Email id: uoicatpb@gmail.com …Respondents (By Advocates: Mr. Pradeep K Singh , Mr. H A Khan)

ORDER Hon’ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)

In the present O.A. filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:-

“i) Issue directions to the Respondents to conduct a fresh Physical Efficiency Test (Long Jump) for the Applicant within the ongoing PET schedule and consider him for further stages of selection;

ii) Declare that not calling the Applicant for the next round on the ground of the Applicant’s toe marginally crossing the take-off line—when the distance requirement was met—is arbitrary, illegal, and contrary to the recruitment notification;

iii) Pass any further or alternative orders this Hon’ble Tribunal deems fit in the interests of justice.”

2. Highlighting the facts of the case, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant, having duly applied pursuant to Centralised Employment Notice (CEN) No. RPF 02/2024, successfully cleared the Computer Based Test and appeared for the Physical Efficiency Test (PET) on 14.11.2025, where he exceeded the prescribed Long Jump qualifying distance of 14 feet by achieving approximately 16–17 feet. However, despite meeting the only notified criterion of distance, he was disqualified merely on the ground that his toe marginally crossed the take-off line, an aspect not stipulated anywhere in the recruitment notification. Learned counsel further submitted that such rejection on a non- notified technical ground is arbitrary, violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, and has deprived the applicant of further consideration in an ongoing selection process, thereby necessitating the filing of the present O.A.

2.1. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the disqualification is illegal as the recruitment notice (CEN 02/2024) prescribes only the requirement of clearing a 14-foot Long Jump, which the applicant surpassed, and no rule regarding marginally crossing the take-off line exists. It was urged that rejecting a candidate who has met and exceeded the prescribed standard is arbitrary, violates legitimate expectations, ignores merit, and amounts to applying undisclosed and unreasonable criteria. Learned counsel further contended that, since the PET is still ongoing until 06.12.2025, granting the applicant an opportunity to re-appear would cause no prejudice to the respondents and is necessary to ensure fairness and non-discrimination in the selection process.

3. Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the O.A. and submitted that the Original Application is not maintainable, as the conduct of the Physical Efficiency Test (PET) and the evaluation of candidates fall within the exclusive domain of the recruitment authorities, and interference at an interlocutory stage would disrupt the ongoing selection process. It was further contended that the applicant has no vested right to seek re-evaluation or a second attempt in the PET, and that such matters pertain to technical assessment best left to the expert committee. Learned counsel argued that the grievance raised pertains to factual appreciation of performance, which cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, and therefore the O.A. is liable to b