LOHRA, J. - (1.) BY the instant writ petition, the petitioner has called in question the impugned order dated 5th of November 2012 (Annex.4) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Additional Bench at Jodhpur (for short, 'CAT'), whereby the learned CAT has dismissed his O.A. against the orders dated 21st of August 2008, 26th of November 2008, and 20th of November 2009 respectively.
(2.) THE facts in brief, giving rise to this writ petition, are that the petitioner laid an Original Application, inter -alia, on the ground that the posts of Office Superintendent II, carrying pay scale of Rs.5500 - 9000, were to be filled in 20% by direct recruitment and 80% by promotion of the staff from lower grade in the pay scale of Rs.5000 -8000 by Railway Board Circular RBE No.177/2002. The said Circular was further followed by yet another Circular issued by the Railway Board bearing RBE No.102/2005, whereby 20% direct recruitment was replaced by Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) by the Railway Recruitment Board. Subsequently, by yet another order RBE No.147 of 2006, the task of conducting LDCE was entrusted to the respective Zonal Railways/Production Units. In adherence of the said order, the second respondent issued Notification dated 20th of April 2007 inviting applications from the eligible employees for filling up 34 posts under 20% LDCE quota and pursuant thereto the petitioner offered his candidature. On scrutiny, it was found that petitioner is eligible to compete for the said selection and his name was included amongst the eligible candidates. The second respondent thereafter issued letter dated 20th of July 2009 prescribing ratio of descriptive and objective type of questions with a clear stipulation about negative markings. The criteria prescribing ratio of descriptive and objective type of questions as well as negative markings was objected to by the Jodhpur Division vide its letter dated 12th of August 2009 on the anvil that it is contrary to Railway Board RBE No.123 of 2006. However, as per the version of the petitioner, despite objection the second respondent fixed the date of LDCE as 31st of August 2009. The petitioner appeared in the test on 31st of August 2009 in which 26 candidates were qualified but in the list of qualified candidates, petitioner's name did not find place. Challenging the criteria of negative markings, the petitioner preferred O.A. before the learned CAT and prayed for quashing the impugned orders. For assailing the procedure adopted for LDCE test, the petitioner has taken shelter of Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. The O.A. was contested by the respondents and in their return they have defended their action. Along with the reply, the respondents produced Annex.R/1 to show the exact procedure to be followed in the selection of Office Superintendent II under LDCE 20% quota, wherein methodology of negative markings is specifically recommended. Refuting the allegation of the petitioner that in the selection process there was procedural irregularity, it was submitted on behalf of the respondents that the entire selection was carried out strictly in accordance with the instructions issued by the Railway Board. With this stand in the reply, the respondents have pleaded that in absence of any illegality in the process of selection, no indulgence can be granted to the petitioner.
(3.) THE private respondent No.3 also joined the issue before the learned Tribunal and countered all the averments contained in the original application. Virtually, the private respondent in his counter has reiterated the stand of the official respondents Railway Administration.;