A.P. Bhattacharya, J. - (1.) This application under Sec. 19 of Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 has been filed by Shri Sarabindu and Smt. Chinmoyee Das against the Union of India, represented by Secretary, Railway Recruitment Board and two others.
(2.) It is the case of the applicant that on 20.12.1984 respondent No.1 published an advertisement for recruitment in various posts in the Eastern Railway. In reply to that employment notice, the applicants made applications and appeared in a written test held on 26.5.1985. They had performed well and as such they were called for the viva voce test. The applicants appeared in the viva voce test held on 7.10.1985. No list of successful candidates was published within a considerable period of time. On 2.1.1987, a list was published containing the names of some successful candidate which their names did not appear. The applicants state that the list published contained the names of candidates, who were known to the respondents. They challenge the said action of the respondents as malafide. They submitted representations on 27.1.1987 but got no reply. The applicants came to know later that the result of the written test and viva voce test cancelled by the respondents on the ground of adoption of malpractices. The applicants challenge that action as illegal. According to them, without making them know the nature of the alleged malpractices and without giving them an opportunity of showing cause against such allegation, the respondents could not lawfully cancel the result of the tests. In filing the application, the applicants have prayed for setting aside the list dated 2.1.1987 containing the names of some successful candidates and the subsequent published in February, 1987 and July, 1987. They have also prayed issuing direction upon the respondents to prepare a fresh list as per result of the written and viva voce tests and to include their names as their performance in both the tests was quite good.
(3.) The application has been contested by the respondents. The respondents have taken the plea that the application is barred by limitation as it is hit by Sec. 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. In the reply the respondents have further stated that on the basis of the written test in which the applicants appeared, 170 and 171 marks were awarded to them initially. But after getting some complaints of adoption of malpractices in the written test, the matter was enquired into and the answer papers of all the candidates were re -examined and marks were allotted to them on revaluation. As a result, the initial marks of 170 of applicant No.1 was reduced to 58 and that of applicant No.2 was reduced to 105. They were awarded only 1 and 15 marks respectively for their performance in the viva voce test. So, it is the case of the respondents that as after revaluation the marks of the applicants were not upto the standard their names did not appear in the list of successful candidates.;