HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO. 19411 OF 2011 Between: Deena Dayalan S/o Late R. Kanna Babu ………….Petitioner AND Ministry of Railways (Railway Board) represented by its Secretary, Rail Bhavan,New Delhi and six others ………….Respondents ORDER: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This Writ Petition has been filed seeking to issue an order particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to and connected with the impugned order dated 18.4.2011 passed in O.A.No. 698 of 2009 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad to the extent not setting aside the impugned selection and empanelment of Group-B post of APO against 30% LDCE quota pursuant to the notification dated 11.12.2006 and quash the same as illegal. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is working as Office Superintendent Grade I in Mechanical Branch of Respondents’ organisation and the next promotion available to him is the Group-B post of APO against 30% LDCE quota. The respondents have published a notification dated 11.12.2006 calling for applications from the eligible candidates to the said Group-B post of APO in scale Rs. 7,500-12,000 against 30% LDCE quota to fill up 1-SC vacancy and 3 UR vacancies for the assessment period 1.3.2005 to 28.2.2007. It is stated that the petitioner was not qualified in the written test as well as in the viva-voce but respondents 5 to 7 and one Mr. S. Peer Babu were qualified. Therefore, the petitioner had sought the copies of his answer booklets under the Right to Information Act 2005 (for short the ‘Act’) on 18th September 2008, which were furnished to the petitioner on 10th November 2008. On 19th November 2008, he had filed an appeal before the third respondent-Senior Deputy General Manager, South Central Railway pointing out several irregularities and illegalities in the manner in which the answer scripts were evaluated and the marks awarded against each question, which was forwarded to 4th respondent-the Chief Personnel Officer, South Central Railway. On 29th December 2008, the petitioner submitted a reminder to 4th respondent-Chief Personnel Officer, South Central Railway and he made a representation under the Act on 31st December 2008 requesting to furnish the ‘key’ and the ‘selection proceedings, to which only the key was furnished. Therefore, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the third respondent- Senior Deputy General Manager, South Central Railway on 17.02.2009 requesting him to furnish the selection proceedings, and to which, the selection proceedings were furnished on 5.3.2009 excluding the marks awarded to each selected candidate and the merit of the candidate and also the composition of the Committee. It is further submitted that the petitioner made another representation dated 17.3.2009 under the Act to furnish the copies of the answer scripts of the four qualified candidates and on 6th April 2009 a reply was given stating that the qualifying candidates have not agreed to part with the copies of their answer scripts and therefore, his request was refused. After that the petitioner herein filed an appeal dated 24th April 2009 to the third respondent herein and the third respondent permitted the petitioner herein vide letter dated 8.5.2009 to peruse the answer scripts for a period of one hour. The petitioner stated that he had noticed several irregularities and anomalies in the evaluation of the answer scripts of the three qualified candidates and therefore, he preferred O.A viz., O.A.No. 698 of 2009 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad and it disposed of the said O.A with a direction that the applicant should submit a comprehensive representation supported by documents, along with a copy of this order, addressed to second respondent, within 15 days of the receipt of the order, which should be considered and disposed of by passing a reasoned and speaking order by either second respondent or the third respondent, within two months of the receipt of the same by the second respondent and the representation and disposal would be in terms of paragraph 208.3 of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual. Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petition is filed. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the Tribunal ought to have seen that the direction given is not in consonance with the findings of illegality and irregularity recorded by it and the same amounts to abdication of its essential judicial function to protect the rights of aggrieved person. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the Tribunal passed well-reasoned order and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides and also perused the material made available on record. It is on record that the petitioner while working as an Office Superintendent Grade I, in the respondents’ organisation, appeared for a written test on 17.2.2008 for the selection to the post of Assistant Personnel Officer against 30% LDCE quota, pursuant to the notification dated 11.12.2006, wherein four vacancies were notified. It is further on record, that the petitioner was not qualified and respondents 5 to 7 and one Mr. S. Peer Babu were qualified. Therefore, the petitioner filed an appeal dated 24.4.2009 to the third respondent-Senior Deputy General Manager, South Central Railway, and in turn he, vide letter dated 8.5.2009 permitted the petitioner to peruse the answer scripts for a period of one hour and the petitioner noticed several irregularities and anomalies in the evaluation of the answer scripts of the qualified candidates. Hence, he filed O.A and the Tribunal directed the petitioner herein to submit a comprehensive representation supported by documents, along with a copy of this order, addressed to second respondent within 15 days of the receipt of the order, which should be considered and disposed of by passing a reasoned and speaking order by either second respondent or third respondent within two months of the receipt of the same by second respondent. The Tribunal further clarified that the representation and disposal should be in terms of Para 208.3 of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual. Therefore, we do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the Tribunal and the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, any observation made herein will not have any impact in considering the case of the petitioner on merits in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J _____________________ G. CHANDRAIAH, J DATE: 12.07.2011 KA ... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1. 2 CD copies.