(Prayer:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorari to call for the records related to the order passed in O.A.No.310/01561/2016, dated 19.12.2024 passed by the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench and quash the same and pass further orders.)

K. Kumaresh Babu, J.

1. This writ petition has been filed by petitioners challenging the order of the Tribunal passed in O.A.No.310/01561/2016, dated 19.12.2024.

2. Heard Mr.K.Seetharam, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr.L.Chandrakumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the sole respondent.

3. Mr.K.Seetharam, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners would submit that to fill up the vacancies to the post of Ticket Examiner from among the serving employees of various Departments in Southern Railway, applications were called for. The selection was based upon the written test and record of service/ performance report. 26 posts of ticket examiner was notified vide notification dated 30.07.2015 in which 157 employees had applied for the selection. The respondent who had also participated in the selection process was disqualified for the reason that he had written a name in the answer sheet which was in violation of the instructions contained in the answer booklet. The same was communicated to the respondent which came to be challenged by him before the Central Administrative Tribunal, wherein the present impugned order is passed directing to appoint the respondent to the post of Ticket Examiner holding to have been qualified for the written examination and setting aside the disqualification that was made by the petitioners.

4. He would submit that a specific instruction have been given to the candidates only to fill up their details in the fly leaf part and instructions have been given that disqualification would be made if a candidate had attempted to disclose his identity by writing the name in the answer sheet, As the respondent had failed to comply with the said instructions, the respondent had been disqualified and the Tribunal without considering the same had held that the reasons given that there has been a violation of the instructions given cannot be applied to the case on hand. It has given a further finding that the respondent had not written his name in the answer book and the mark that has been made was only in the fly leaf and not in the answer book.

5. He would submit that the instructions given to a candidate had to be strictly adhered to by the candidate and in that context, he had also referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of TamilNadu and others Vs G.Hemalathaa and another reported in (2020) 19 SCC 430. Hence, he seeks indulgence of this Court.

6. Countering his arguments, Mr.L.Chandrakumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the sole respondent would submit that the respondent was disqualified on the ground that the respondent had written a name with address in the answer sheet and that as per the instructions given, a candidate should not write his name, address, designation or any marks or symbol in the answer sheet provided by the administration at the time of written examination. He would also submit that the written examination also contained contained various questions including a letter writing where the respondent had given a fictitious name and address and had not given his name.

7. He would submit that what had been prohibited under the fly sheet appended to the answer sheet was only an instruction not to write the candidate's name or roll number or any instruction anywhere in the answer book except in the fly leaf. He would submit that the respondent had not written his name in the answer sheet but had only written a fictitious name. He would further submit that the respondent had scored 64 marks in the written examination, but however had been disqualified only on the ground indicated above. He would submit that it is not the case of the petitioners that for the answers given by the respondent, he had been given higher marks by the examiner in view of the name that has been written by the respondent in the answer sheet.

8. He would submit that even for the said letter writing, the respondent had not been given full marks, but had been given only 2 marks which itself would show that the writing of fictitious name had not weighed the mind of the examiner. He would submit that writing of fictitious name in the answer sheet has not been prohibited under the instructions and what was prohibited was only writing the the candidate's name in the answer sheet. Therefore, he would submit that the respondent had not committed any violation of the instructions given in the fly sheet and therefore, he would pray this Court to dismiss the Writ Petition.

9. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.

10. The respondent who had been working as a Sweeper Cum Porter had joined the selection process to the post of Ticket Examiner which is an internal selection and had also participated in the written examination. The answer sheet of the respondent had also been placed on record before us and the same would discloses that the respondent had been awarded 64 marks in the written examination. In the question for letter writing, after writing the letter he had written a “To address” which has also been taken note of the Tribunal in its order. The instructions given in the fly sheet had also been extracted by the Tribunal in its order which would indicate that the instructions have been given to the candidates not to write their name/ roll number or any instructions anywhere in the answer book except in the fly leaf.

11. A clear finding had been given by the Tribunal that the applicant has not written his name anywhere in the answer sheet and that he had not violated the instructions given in the fly sheet. However, it is the case of the petitioners that writing of a name in the answer sheet itself would make the answer sheet identifiable by the examiner which would given him a advantage in awarding of marks to the candidate.

12. A perusal of the answer sheet that had been produced by the petitioners would indicate that he had not been given marks for the wrong answers that he had attempted. In fact, even for the letter writing part, the respondent had not been benefitted with full marks. Hence, we are of the considered view that not only there has been no violation of the instructions given to the candidates as found by the Tribunal but also no undue benefit had been bestowed on the first respondent. Hence, we are in agreement with the directions issued by the Tribunal and the same cannot be said to suffer from any infirmity or illegality which warrants interference by this Court.

13. In fine, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. As a sequel, there shall be an direction to petitioners to comply with the directions given by the Tribunal within a period of three (3) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, there shall be no order a to costs.