Case Note & Summary
The writ petition was filed by the Union of India, represented by the General Manager, South Western Railway, Hubli, and others, challenging the order dated 31.01.2013 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, in O.A.No.856/2012. The respondent, Samuel P.M., was an employee of the South Western Railway working as Vigilance Inspector (Gen). He had applied for the post of Staff and Welfare Inspector Grade-III. The petitioners contended that the respondent had scored below 60% marks and was therefore not eligible for empanelment and selection. However, the Tribunal had held that the respondent was entitled to 4 additional marks and thus eligible for selection. The High Court directed the petitioners to produce the original answer book of the respondent. Upon verification, the court found that the valuer had erroneously entered 4 marks instead of 5½ marks for question No.5 of Part A. Even after adding the additional 1½ marks, the respondent's total marks came to 58½, which was below the 60% threshold required for empanelment. Consequently, the court held that the respondent was not entitled to empanelment and selection. The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned order of the Tribunal, and dismissed the original application filed by the respondent.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Selection Process - Marks Totaling - Eligibility Criteria - The court examined whether the respondent was entitled to empanelment and selection to the post of Staff and Welfare Inspector Grade-III. The court found that the valuer had erroneously entered 4 marks instead of 5½ marks for question No.5 of Part A, but even after adding 1½ marks, the respondent's total was 58½, which was below 60%. Held that the respondent was not eligible for empanelment as per the eligibility criteria. (Paras 2-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Central Administrative Tribunal erred in holding that the respondent was entitled to selection to the post of Staff and Welfare Inspector Grade-III despite scoring below 60% marks.
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 31.01.2013 passed in O.A.No.856/2012 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, is quashed. The original application filed by the respondent is dismissed.
Law Points
- Administrative Law
- Service Law
- Selection Process
- Marks Totaling
- Eligibility Criteria
- Empanelment
Case Details
2014 LawText (KAR) (07) 7
W.P.No.79907/2013 (S-CAT)
Dr. Justice K. Bhakthavatsala, Mr. Justice Pradeep D. Waingankar
Sri Ajay U. Patil (for petitioners), Sri Basavaraj Godachi (for respondent)
Union of India, South Western Railway, Hubli; Chief Personal Officer, South Western Railway, Hubli; Divisional Railway Manager, South Western Railway, Hubli
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, in O.A.No.856/2012.
Remedy Sought
The petitioners sought to quash the order dated 31.01.2013 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, in O.A.No.856/2012.
Filing Reason
The petitioners contended that the respondent had scored below 60% marks and was not eligible for empanelment and selection to the post of Staff and Welfare Inspector Grade-III, but the Tribunal erroneously held that the respondent was entitled to selection.
Previous Decisions
The Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, by order dated 31.01.2013 in O.A.No.856/2012, held that the respondent was entitled to 4 marks and was entitled to selection to the post of Staff and Welfare Inspector Grade-III.
Issues
Whether the Central Administrative Tribunal erred in holding that the respondent was entitled to selection to the post of Staff and Welfare Inspector Grade-III despite scoring below 60% marks?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners submitted that the respondent scored below 60% and was not eligible for empanelment and selection, and the Tribunal erred in holding otherwise.
Respondent submitted that there was an error in totaling the marks and that he was entitled to marks on account of wrong/ambiguous questions, and the impugned order did not call for interference.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that even after correcting the marks, the respondent's total was 58½, which was below 60%, and therefore he was not eligible for empanelment and selection to the post of Staff and Welfare Inspector Grade-III.
Judgment Excerpts
We notice that instead of mentioning 5½ marks as against question No.5 of Part A in the valuer’s sheet, the valuer has mentioned as 4 marks. Thus, if 1½ is added to 57 as scored by the respondent, he gets total marks as 58½. It is below 60% and hence he is not entitled for empanelment.
Procedural History
The respondent filed O.A.No.856/2012 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, which was allowed by order dated 31.01.2013. The petitioners challenged that order by filing the present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Articles 226, 227
