ASHAD ULLAH KHAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition, six locomotive drivers working with the South East Central Railway challenge the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal on 20-1-2006 rejecting their Original Application No.500 of 2005.

(2.) The petitioners were to be considered for promotion as drivers of passenger trains. Thirty-seven posts of such drivers were to be filled in from Nagpur Division. The petitioners along with other drivers were subjected to written tests held on 27th and 29th April and 2nd May, 4th May, 6th May and 12th May, 2005. A circular by the Railway Board required that 45 to 55% of the questions at such tests were to be objective type and the rests were to be descriptive. The petitioners were subjected to tests on 29-4-2005 and 4-5-2005 when 40% objective type questions were put. On 2-5-2005, however, 60% objective type questions were put and this is how the petitioners claim to have been discriminated. The petitioners, therefore, filed Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, which rejected the application holding that no mala fides had been alleged and that there was bound to be some fluctuation if written tests were conducted on six different dates. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners are before this Court and assail the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal.

(3.) The petition was admitted for expeditious hearing on 4-8- 2006. On behalf of respondents No.1 to 3, the Railway Administration, an affidavit and a return have been filed justifying their decision. It was stated that the circular from the Railway Board prescribed that objective type questions should be set for about 50% of the total marks for the written test. These guidelines were not mandatory and, therefore, the ratio of objective and subjective type questions could have fluctuated within the prescribed range. There were no mala fides and, therefore, there was no injustice caused to the petitioners. It was further pointed out that the percentage of empanellment candidates examined on 2-5-2005, when 60% objective type questions were put, was only 69.56%. Empanellment of 90% candidates out of those tested on 29-4-2005 when 40% objective type questions were put, indicates that there was no injustice on account of the different testing procedure. The respondents, therefore, pray for dismissal of the petition.