Tribunal Order on Railway Selection Case
Uploaded by
007lovinTribunal Order on Railway Selection Case
Uploaded by
007lovinCommon questions
Powered by AIThe reasons for rejecting the interim relief included the respondents' clarification on the process and criteria, where despite the discrepancy in the counter-reply, the tribunal found that the process had sufficient grounds and adherence to procedural requirements as submitted by the respondents. The tribunal did not find compelling cause to alter the ongoing selection protocol .
The change in rules affected the selection process by modifying the criteria midway, as originally set by the notification issued on 15.11.2024. The Tribunal noted this grievance and considered the requests for interim relief to conduct the selection process under the original notification terms. However, the Tribunal ultimately rejected the prayer for interim relief .
To ensure the filling of maximum vacancies, the Railway Board extended open invitations to all eligible and willing candidates to participate in the selection process. They allowed participation in the written examination and planned to call candidates for viva voce in a ratio of six times the number of vacancies .
The discrepancy concerned a rule change notified on 03.02.2025, after the initial notification on 15.11.2024 for the selection process. The applicant argued this change was mid-way, affecting fairness. This was addressed by the tribunal through consideration for interim relief, though ultimately, the relief was denied .
The tribunal's decision reflects on procedural fairness by scrutinizing the changes in rules post-notification and the need for transparency and consistency in selection criteria. While acknowledging the grievances related to mid-way change, the rejection of interim relief underscores the tribunal’s balanced approach in ensuring both procedural adherence and administrative discretion .
The tribunal noted that candidates would be called for viva voce based on their marks in the written examination, specifically if they were within a zone calculated as six times the number of vacancies (X*6).
The tribunal planned to handle the respondents' representation by requiring them to file a short reply regarding the interim relief request or seek instructions on the matter. This plan was outlined in the proceedings, setting a date for further considerations and listing for completion of pleadings .
The applicant requested interim relief to ensure the selection process adhered to the original notifications and eligibility criteria, and to conduct the exam in accordance with RBE 93/2024, with a call for qualified candidates for viva-voce based on merit. The outcome was that the tribunal rejected this request for interim relief .
The discrepancy identified in the Railway Board's counter-reply was the inadvertent mention of 'seniority' instead of 'marks obtained by the applicants in the written examination'. This error had the potential to misrepresent the selection criteria, however, the tribunal proceeded to reject the interim relief requested by the applicants, suggesting it did not critically impact the proceedings .
The main components for promotion in the Railway Board's selection process included a written examination, viva voce, and assessment of Annual Performance Appraisal Reports (APAR), with the results consolidated based on these criteria .