Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 3875

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Sudhi Ranjan Mishra, Judicial Member, Pramod Kumar Das, Administrative Member
Jitu Ranjan Behera – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
O.A.Nos. 260/00278 of 2024|O.A.Nos. 260/00291 of 2024

Advocates:
For the applicant: Mr. N.R.Routray, Counsel
For the respondents: Mr. B.R.Swain, Counsel for UOI, M/s. A.Swain, S.K.Ojha, S.Tripathy, Counsel, Mr. J.K.Nayak, Counsel for UOI

Re-evaluation of OMR sheets after final select list publication is impermissible absent specific rules; violates natural justice without opportunity to selected candidates; Railway Board letters do not authorize post-publication re-evaluation.

Headnote:(A) Administrative Law - Re-evaluation of answer sheets - In absence of specific rules permitting re-evaluation of OMR sheets after publication of final select list, such re-evaluation is impermissible - Railway Board letters do not confer authority for re-evaluation post-publication and acting upon panel - Revised panel quashed for lack of rules, misinterpretation of interim order, and violation of natural justice by not affording opportunity to selected candidates already sent for training. (Paras 11, 14, 15, 16)

(B) Natural Justice - Audi alteram partem - Selected candidates entitled to reasonable opportunity of being heard before adverse action like revision of select list affecting their interests, especially after reporting for training. (Para 16)

(C) Selection Process - Modification of panel - Permissible only pre-publication by higher authority; post-publication re-evaluation without rules or opportunity invalid - Interim order permitting disposal of representation for upliftment due to non-joining not directive for re-evaluation. (Paras 13, 14, 15)

Facts of the case:
Notification invited applications for vacancies against Intermediate Apprentice Quota - Written exam held, final panel published including applicants at serial nos. 6 and 7 under unreserved category - Applicants spared for training and reported - Pursuant to interim order in another OA permitting disposal of representation for upliftment due to non-joining of candidate at serial no. 1, respondents re-evaluated OMR sheets, published revised panel excluding applicants and including others, and repatriated them from training without notice.

Findings of Court:
No rules exist for re-evaluation post-panel publication; Railway Board letters cited do not authorize it; revised panel issued on incorrect interpretation of interim order and without opportunity to applicants; earlier panel restored with direction to comply within 30 days.

Issues: (i) Permissibility of re-evaluation absent rules; (ii) Existence of railway rules for post-panel re-evaluation; (iii) Whether interim order directed re-evaluation; (iv) Validity of revising panel post-training without opportunity. (Para 10)

Ratio Decidendi: Re-evaluation impermissible without specific rules; benefit of doubt to authority only in interpretation, not for unauthorized re-evaluation; action causing adverse consequences mandates hearing; modification letters apply pre-publication only.

Result: OAs allowed; revised panel quashed, original panel restored.

Table of Content
1. parties and case details identified (Para 1 , 2)
2. selection process and revision challenged (Para 3)
3. no rule permits omr re-evaluation (Para 5 , 6)
4. respondents justify re-evaluation per representations (Para 7 , 8 , 9)
5. re-evaluation impermissible absent rules (Para 10 , 11 , 17)
6. railway letters do not authorize post-publication re-evaluation (Para 12 , 13 , 14)
7. violation of natural justice principles (Para 15 , 16)
8. revised panel quashed, original restored (Para 18 , 19)

ORDER

PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, MEMBER (A):

Since, the facts and issues involved in both the OAs are same, similar and arose out of one cause of action, for the sake of convenience and to avoid conflicting decision, this common order is passed, which shall govern both the OAs, viz. 278/2024 (Jitu Ranjan Behera) and 291/2024 (Debashis Rout).

2. Facts of the matter are that for filling up of the 09 vacancies [UR-07 & SC-02] of Jr. Engineer, Level-6, against 25% Intermediate Apprentice Quota in Mechanical Department of E.Co.Rly., applications were invited from the existing eligible employees by notification dated 24.02.2021. On 21.05.2022 and 22.05.2022, written examination was conducted and 42 candidates declared qualified vide order dated 04.07.2023, of which final panel of 09 candidates was published vide office order dated 06.09.2023 wherein the name of Sri Jitu Ranjan Behera [OA No. 278/2024] and Sri Debashish Rout [OA 291/2024] find place at Sl. Nos. 6 and 7 respectively under UR category. After the final select list was published on 06.09.2023, the competent authority issued letter dated 16.10.2023 directing spare of the selected candidates for training, pursuant to which, they were spared on 05.11.2023 and 02.11.2023 and, after being spared, both of them reported before the Vice-Principal (Mech), KGP. It is the case of the applicants that one Sri Krushna Chandra Sahu challenged his non-selection under UR category before this Bench in OA No. 647/2023 wherein this Bench vide order dated 03.11.2023 passed the orders as under:

“Heard both sides.

Admit. Issue notice to the respondents to file counter and objection to IR.

Respondents to take instruction and file reply by next date with regards to promotion of the applicant as wait listed candidate since he is claiming to be placed at Sl No. 8 and person at S1 No. 1 has refused to join and has joined at other place, therefore he is eligible for promotion to the post of JE (C&W) in pursuance to notification dated 24.02.2021 (A/1) and panel published vide order dated 06.09.2023. Meanwhile till filing of such reply, purely as interim measure it is directed that one post in question that has fallen vacant shall not be filled up without leave of this Tribunal.

It is also directed that pendency of the OA Shall not be a bar for the Respondent No.3/Competent Authority to dispose of representation dated 22.09.2023 of the applicant.” [Emphasis added]

3. It is stated that without giving them any opportunity, the Resp. No.4 revised the final select list dated 06.09.2023 vide 0.0. dated 22.04.2024 by stating to have been carried out in compliance of the aforesaid order of this Bench and, in the revised select list, their names did not find place whereas the names of Sri Partha Sarathi Pattnaik and Sri Santosh Tripathy were included and reflected under UR category. Consequently, Resp. No.4 instructed for repatriation of the applicants from training. Challenging the revised panel dated 22.04.2024 published after re-evaluation of the OMR sheets in supersession of the earlier final select panel dated 06.09.2023, the applicants have filed these OAs praying therein as under:

“i. To quash the revised panel dtd. 22.04.2024 under Ann. A//9 (so far the Respondent No. 8 & 9) are concerned.

ii. And to direct the respondents to promote the applicant to the post of JE(C&W) in Level- 6 at par with similarly placed persons of panel dated 06.09.2023.

And pass any other order.............

4 The Official as well as Private Respondent

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 3875

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALSudhi Ranjan Mishra, Judicial Member, Pramod Kumar Das, Administrative MemberJitu Ranjan Behera – AppellantVersusUnion of India – RespondentO.A.Nos. 260/00278 of 2024|O.A.Nos. 260/00291 of 2024

Re-evaluation of OMR sheets after final select list publication is impermissible absent specific rules; violates natural justice without opportunity to selected candidates; Railway Board letters do not authorize post-publication re-evaluation.

Cases Referred (5)

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Sudhi Ranjan Mishra, Judicial Member, Pramod Kumar Das, Administrative Member
Jitu Ranjan Behera – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
O.A.Nos. 260/00278 of 2024|O.A.Nos. 260/00291 of 2024