Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh – The Chhattisgarh High Court has dealt a significant blow to the South East
Central Railway by upholding the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal
(CAT), which directed a re-evaluation of answer sheets in a departmental
examination for the promotion of loco pilots. The court dismissed the Railway’s
appeal and affirmed CAT’s direction as valid and justified.
The controversy dates back to 2014, when the Railways
conducted a departmental exam to fill seven vacant loco pilot posts. A total of
56 candidates appeared for the examination. Of these, only 18 were declared to
have passed, and ultimately, only 4 candidates were found eligible for
promotion. This raised serious concerns about possible discrepancies in the
evaluation process.
One of the candidates, Sanat Rao, became the key petitioner
in the case. He had initially scored 54.5 marks in the examination and
requested a re-evaluation of his answer sheet based on the official model
answer key. After review, 3 marks were added to his score, bringing it to 57.5.
Despite this, he was still not selected for promotion, which prompted him to
file a petition with CAT.
The Tribunal ordered the formation of an expert committee to
conduct a fresh, transparent re-evaluation of all candidates' answer sheets.
The Railways challenged this decision in the High Court. However, the court
ruled in favor of CAT, stating that the tribunal had only ordered a
re-evaluation and not canceled any existing appointments. It also noted that
failing to include the already selected candidates as parties in the case was
not a critical error.
The High Court further emphasized that re-evaluation was
essential to maintain transparency and fairness in the selection process. It
directed the Railways to constitute a new panel of subject experts to reassess
all the answer sheets from the 2014 examination.
This verdict is being viewed as a crucial step toward
ensuring justice, accountability, and transparency in government recruitment
and promotion processes. It also sets a precedent for similar cases involving
alleged irregularities in departmental evaluations.