ORDER : Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The first writ petition W.P.(S) No. 4624 of 2016 is preferred by the applicant being aggrieved by part of the impugned order dated 27.05.2016 passed in O.A. No. 80 of 2013(R) by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench at Ranchi, whereby the learned Tribunal has decided the first issue relating to computation of vacancies in the matter of filling up of 30% vacancies in Civil Engineering Department Group 'B' panel through Limited Departmental Competitive Examination against the petitioner. The issue related to computation of 05 vacancies under Notification dated 14.12.2009 wherein the petitioner alleged non-compliance of the ratio rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M.Nagaraj & Others Versus Union of India & Others reported in (2006) 8 SCC 212 as also in the case of U.P. Power Corporation Limited Vs. Rajesh Kumar & Others reported in (2012) 7 SCC 1 . Learned Tribunal came to the opinion that the applicant having participated in the examination without challenging the notification and the results published thereafter, cannot assail the same after having failed. Learned counsel for the applicant/petitioner, in support of challenge, made the following submissions : 3. That in terms of Rule 208.3 of Chapter 2 Section 'A' relating to Promotion of Subordinate Staff under the Indian Railway Establishment Manual, a candidate had the right to make a representation against his selection which should have been dealt on merits without restriction of any time limit for its submission. He further contends that in terms of the Railway Establishment Manual, Notification of such advertisement should have been communicated to the intending candidates which has not been done. Petitioner therefore participated ignorantly of the true legal position, so far as computation of vacancies in such exercise is concerned. Learned counsel has relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raj Kumar and others versus Shakti Raj and others (1997) 9 SCC 527 Para 16 thereof in support of the contention that the selection exercise can always be questioned in case it is affected with glaring irregularities. Therefore, the principle of estoppel, conduct or acquiescence has no application to the present facts of the case as well. 4. Therefore, the principle of estoppel, conduct or acquiescence has no application to the present facts of the case as well. 4. This plea of the applicant/petitioner has been squarely opposed by learned counsel for the Railways and the private respondent i.e. Scheduled Tribe candidate who has succeeded against one of the 05 posts earmarked for Scheduled Tribes in the said exercise. Learned counsel for the Railways has contested the claim of the petitioner on facts so far as it relates to communication of the notification is concerned. He further relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vijay Syal & Another Versus State of Punjab and Others reported in AIR 2003 SC 4023 Para 12 thereof to support the findings of the learned Tribunal on the issue that once the applicant has consciously participated in the recruitment exercise, it is not open for him to question the selection exercise on being unsuccessful. 5. Learned counsel representing the private respondent in W.P.(S) No. 4624/2016 submits that provisions under the Indian Railway Establishment Manual contained in Chapter II Section 'A' relating to Rules governing promotion of Subordinate Staff, more specifically relating to Group 'B' posts i.e. Rule 201.1 upto Rule 202.3 are very much in the statute book which the petitioner cannot feign ignorance. The belated challenge to the computation of vacancies earmarking the post for SC/ST in terms of Rule 202.3 therefore, does not merit acceptance. The notification for inviting applications was issued on 14.12.2009 and petitioner applied and participated in it. The results thereof were finally published on 27.02.2012. Once the petitioner has failed on merits, the challenge to the computation of vacancies has been made relying upon the ratio rendered by the Apex Court in the case of M. Nagaraj (Supra) and the other judgments rendered by the Apex Court. Therefore, they should not be entertained. 6. We have considered the submissions of the counsel for the parties, so far as the limited challenge to the order impugned dated 27.05.2016 by the applicant/writ petitioner is concerned. We concur with the opinion of the learned Tribunal on this issue for more than one reasons. Therefore, they should not be entertained. 6. We have considered the submissions of the counsel for the parties, so far as the limited challenge to the order impugned dated 27.05.2016 by the applicant/writ petitioner is concerned. We concur with the opinion of the learned Tribunal on this issue for more than one reasons. In the first place, the statute relating to promotion of subordinate staff to Group 'B' posts in itself prescribes for reservation in favour of SCs/STs i.e. post based reservation in the matter of filling up of Group 'B' vacancies on the basis of selection and only those eligible SCs/STs who are in the zone of consideration determined in accordance with the Rules, are to be called for the selection. The instant provisions are on the statute book from much before. Petitioner therefore, cannot be permitted to say that computation of vacancies by the respondent-Railways was dehors the statutory rules. On the other hand, petitioner has consciously participated in the selection exercise which was spread over a period of three years and has laid such a challenge on not having succeeded finally through original application filed in the year 2013. The selection exercise has led to the promotion of 05 candidates, 04 for the unreserved category and 01 relating to the Scheduled Tribe category. The promoted officers have also joined. In such circumstances, the entire selection exercise cannot be annulled on such a challenge laid by the petitioner after conclusion of the exercise. 7. We, therefore, rely upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Vijay Syal & Another (Supra) Para 12 whereof is profitably quoted hereunder as well : 12. As can be seen from the difference of marks secured by the candidates in interview, it does not appear abnormal or per se does not smell of any foul play or does not appear patently arbitrary. The lowest of the marks given in the interview are 11.5 and the highest are 22.87. Further marks secured in the interview and the marks secured in written test are also not grossly disproportionate. This apart, out of total marks of 240, only 25 marks were earmarked for interview. The lowest of the marks given in the interview are 11.5 and the highest are 22.87. Further marks secured in the interview and the marks secured in written test are also not grossly disproportionate. This apart, out of total marks of 240, only 25 marks were earmarked for interview. So 25 marks for interview out of 240 as against 200 for written test and 15 marks for qualification and other activities do not admit an element of arbitrariness or give scope for use of discretion by members of the interview Committee recklessly or designedly in giving more marks to show favour in interview so as to give an advantage or march to an undeserving candidate of their over others who had shown extraordinary merit in written test. From the chart, we find among the candidates, marks secured in the written test were between 119 to 128 except in one case belonging to Scheduled Castes were 114. This apart, the marks secured in the interview are based on the assessment of the Interview Committee. Normally, it is not for the court to sit in judgment over such assessment and particularly in the absence of any mala fides or extraneous considerations attributed and established. The interview marks of 25 as against total marks of 240, cannot be taken as excessive. It comes to 10.4%. Possibly the selection would have been vitiated, if the marks for interview were 100, as against 150 marks for written test as sought to be made out. Unfortunately, for the appellants, their misrepresentation in this regard, is unfolded very clearly as already stated above. Further, the appellants, knowing the criteria fixed for selection and allocation of marks, did participate in the interview; when they are not successful, it is not open to them to turn around and attack the very criteria. The High Court in the impugned order has found that the criteria contained in Annexure R-1 filed in the writ petition was published and that such criteria was adopted earlier also in respect of other selections.” 8. The instant writ petition therefore fails. 9. WPS 6047/2016 is by the Railways being aggrieved by the effective direction passed by the Learned Tribunal in the same original application, whereunder Respondents have been directed to re-check the marks awarded in question no. The instant writ petition therefore fails. 9. WPS 6047/2016 is by the Railways being aggrieved by the effective direction passed by the Learned Tribunal in the same original application, whereunder Respondents have been directed to re-check the marks awarded in question no. 2(a) and 2(b) of Part-A of Paper-II by a person other than the original examiner and to recalculate the number and to recast the merit list accordingly, if the applicant is being found having higher marks than the other successful candidates. Learned Tribunal has also directed that if applicant is found more eligible than the empanelled candidates, in that case, the last unreserved candidate is to be reverted after giving him an opportunity of hearing by the Respondents. In such a situation, it would be desirable that such person may be adjusted against the available vacancy at the earliest in view of the fact that he has rendered few years of service on the promoted post. 10. Material facts relating to the selection exercise under Notification dated 14.12.2009 as are necessary for the purposes of adjudicating this issue, have been briefly referred to herein-above while dealing with the case of the writ petitioner in WPS 4624/2016. From the pleadings on record and the documents relied upon by the learned counsel for the parties, we may further succinctly summarize the material facts which are necessary to be taken into account for adjudication of the instant issue. 11. Respondent Railways conducted an exercise for filling up of 30% vacancies in Civil Engineering Department for 05 posts under Notification dated 14.12.2009. The final panel was published on 27.02.2012 for five candidates. Applicant / private Respondent No. 1 herein participated, but could not come within the five selected candidates. 04 vacancies were earmarked for unreserved category while one was for the schedule tribe candidates. The applicant therefore approached the Learned Tribunal seeking quashment of the empanelment order dated 27.02.2012; quashing of the order dated 06.05.2014 (Annexure-7) whereby, his request for reevaluation of the answer book of the petitioner for part (b) of question No. 2 of Paper-II of LDCE held on 20.06.2010, was rejected. He also prayed for production of answer script of others vis-a-vis the petitioner. 12. It was during pendency of the original application that Respondent rejected the representation of the petitioner by order dated 06.05.2014. He also prayed for production of answer script of others vis-a-vis the petitioner. 12. It was during pendency of the original application that Respondent rejected the representation of the petitioner by order dated 06.05.2014. The same was also permitted to be challenged in the original application through a miscellaneous application M.A. No. 050/00059/2014 dated 21.07.2014. Learned Tribunal ventured to examine the plea of the petitioner by calling upon the answer script of the applicant and other successful candidates, as under: Sl. No. Name Code No. 1. Lalitesh Kumar B/E/131 2. Anoop Singh B/E/73 3. Matloob Alam B/E/178 4. Satyendra Kr. Sharma B/E/56 5. Anil Kr. Puran (ST) [Adjusted against ST vacancy] B/E/72 6. Ajay Kr. Rai [applicant] B/E/18 13. Learned Tribunal compared the answer of the petitioner to question no. 2(a) and 2(b) of Part-A of Paper-II with the answers made by other successful candidates to the same question. It came to the opinion that with regard to one successful candidate having code no. B/E/56, examiner had awarded 20 full marks and with regard to the candidate having code no. B/E/72 and B/E/178, said candidates had not attempted the question as only five questions were to be attempted out of 15 under part A. Other candidate having Code No. B/E/73 was awarded 18 marks on the same correct answer. The applicant having Code No. B/E/18 have been granted 08 marks though his answers were identical and correct one. Learned Tribunal therefore came to the opinion that examiner had neither adopted any uniform procedure as on one hand, he has granted single number for two different questions and on the other hand, on the same answer sheet, he has granted separate number for separate questions. It accordingly was pleased to set aside the order of rejection dated 06.05.2014 (Annexure-7) and directed the Respondents to recheck the marks awarded in question no. 2(a) and (b) of Part-A of Paper-II by a third examiner. 14. We may straightaway quote the two questions of part A of Paper-II which are as under: “Q2 (a) Define water content, void ratio and dry density of a soil. 1x10=10 (b) If total density of a soil Y=1.7 gm/cc and moisture content 1x10=10 W:20%, what will be the dry density?” 15. 14. We may straightaway quote the two questions of part A of Paper-II which are as under: “Q2 (a) Define water content, void ratio and dry density of a soil. 1x10=10 (b) If total density of a soil Y=1.7 gm/cc and moisture content 1x10=10 W:20%, what will be the dry density?” 15. We may also quote the relevant extracts of the instructions which are issued to the examiners and are contained at Annexure-6 series, hereunder: “Note (3): Proper and uniform evaluation of the answer sheets, especially for narrative type of answers should be ensured. In order to achieve this objective he officer evaluating the answer sheets before starting the evaluation, should keep ready the correct answers for the questions separately for the objective and narrative type and then evaluate the answer sheets with reference to these answers. Note (5): In both the multiple choice objective type and narrative type of answers, while there should not be any over-writing and erasing; correction of marks, if genuinely warranted, may be made by striking the marks originally given and entering the fresh marks duly attesting the correction. However, to avoid chances of mistakes by the evaluators, it may strictly be ensured that the question setter provides the evaluator with correct / model answers. Note (6): It is wrong tendency on the part of the evaluating officer to review their own evaluation and to award the marks keeping in mind the percentage of pass marks with a view to bringing more candidates into the zone for viva-voce test. The marks have to be awarded strictly based on the correctness and contents of the answers given by the candidates.” 16. Relevant instruction at Note-3 and 5 would suffice for the purpose of deciding the instant controversy. 17. The Railways, writ petitioner herein, has taken a plea that evaluation of both the questions 2(a) and 2(b) were done by awarding a single marking. The scheme of the question paper permitted such marking and the same practice was applied to all other candidates as well. This contention of the Railways however, does not convince us as a bare reading of two instruction at Note 3 & 5 indicates that the evaluator should keep ready the correct answers for the questions separately i.e. for the objective and narrative types. One of question i.e. 2(a) is a narrative question while other 2(b) is an objective question i.e. pure mathematical. One of question i.e. 2(a) is a narrative question while other 2(b) is an objective question i.e. pure mathematical. Instruction No. 3, quoted above, clearly directs the Evaluator to evaluate the objective and narrative questions separately. 18. The applicant got the answer sheet of paper-II vide CPO's letter dated 14.06.2013. Petitioner found that answer to question no. 2(b) has not been evaluated and as such, despite it being totally correct, only 08 marks have been awarded against both the questions 2(a) and 2(b), though 10 marks were earmarked for both the questions separately. He therefore requested before the competent authority for re-evaluation of non-evaluated answer of his question 2(b) of paper-II Part-A and to prepare a fresh merit list / panel. According to the applicant, if his answer to question no. 2(a) and 2(b) are properly evaluated, he would be placed at serial no. 3 of the merit list. The applicant also made reminders on 12.09.2013 and 21.09.2013, whereafter the Respondent passed an order dated 06.05.2014 rejecting his request for evaluation on the plea that uniform pattern was followed by evaluating officer in awarding marks to questions i.e. single marks for part (a) and (b) as a whole for answer to question no. 2 of Part-A Paper-II. Petitioner in the challenge to the order dated 06.05.2014 before the Learned Tribunal, took the plea that under the Railway Board's Guidelines for evaluation of answer books, 'each question should be evaluated separately and marks awarded in front of the questions'. He further referred to a case where East Central Railway passed an order for evaluation of three parts of question no. 2 in Group-A of Paper-I of one Shambhu Kumar [copy code-451] and reevaluation was made by the person other than the original evaluator. 19. Note at Annexure-8 dated 01.05.2014 by the examiner who had evaluated the answer sheets earlier also indicates that while sticking to his stand that uniform pattern was followed in awarding marks to question no. 2 also i.e. single marks for Part (a) and (b) as a whole, he has at the same time, opined that re-examination of the same at this stage would amount to reevaluation of the undersigned which is beyond the scope of the examiner. This note is apparently the basis for rejection order dated 06.05.2014. 20. 2 also i.e. single marks for Part (a) and (b) as a whole, he has at the same time, opined that re-examination of the same at this stage would amount to reevaluation of the undersigned which is beyond the scope of the examiner. This note is apparently the basis for rejection order dated 06.05.2014. 20. Learned Tribunal on comparison of the answer sheets of applicant with other successful candidates, have found that while for same correct answers, other successful candidates namely, B/E/73 and B/E/56 have been awarded 18 and 20 marks respectively, the applicant who had made correct answer to question 2(b), has been awarded a total of 08 marks against the answer to question no. 2(a) and 2(b) only. It is contended by the Railways that a single marking was to be made to both the questions. This however does not appeal to reason. If the answer for 2(b) which is a mathematical question was found to be correct as of other successful candidate who got full or more marks on evaluation of question no. 2(a) and 2(b) i.e. 18 and 20 respectively, it leads to the inference that the examiner may not have evaluated the question no. 2(a) and 2(b) separately, as required under instruction. Since the same examiner had expressed its opinion otherwise while rejecting the claim of the petitioner vide Annexure-8 to the writ petition, Learned Tribunal was right in directing the Respondents to get the answer sheet of the applicant evaluated by a third examiner. 21. In this background, Learned Tribunal had reason to quash the order dated 06.05.2014 whereby representation of the petitioner was rejected. It is well settled by the pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that in the absence of any provision for reevaluation of answer book in the relevant rules, no candidate has a right to claim reevaluation, unless it is shown that non-evaluation of any question or evaluation done is contrary to the norms fixed by the examining body [See: (2007) 8 SCC 242 , Secy, W.B. Council of Higher Secondary Education Versus Ayan Das and others]. Learned Tribunal in the instant case had been called to examine whether the decision of the Respondent authorities was in contravention of any statutory or binding rules. 22. Learned Tribunal in the instant case had been called to examine whether the decision of the Respondent authorities was in contravention of any statutory or binding rules. 22. The answer scripts of the petitioner were obtained vide CPO's letter dated 14.06.2013 and the representation of the applicant based upon that was rejected by the competent authority on 06.05.2014. Under Rule 208.3 of Chapter-II Section 'A' relating to promotion of Subordinate Staff under the Railway Establishment Manual, a candidate had a right to make representation against his selection, which should be dealt with on merits without any time limit for its submission. The Learned Tribunal was therefore required to see whether the decision of the competent authority is arbitrary, unreasonable and whether the decision contravenes any statutory or binding rules. From the note of the Learned Examiner, referred above, (Annexure-8 to WPS No. 6047/2016), it appears that the Examiner had also made an observation that it was beyond his scope for undertaking the exercise of re-examination as it would amount to reevaluation. Note-3 of the Instructions for the Evaluator, quoted above, however show that the Examiner was required to evaluate the objective and narrative questions separately. In this factual context, the impugned direction of the Learned Tribunal for evaluation of the question no. 2(a) and 2(b) of Part-A of Paper-II, in effect, only require the Respondent authorities to act in furtherance of the guidelines and instructions framed by them in the matter of evaluation, which have not been followed in the case of the applicant, so far as answer to question no. 2(a) & 2(b) are concerned. The approach of the Learned Tribunal limiting the direction of reevaluation only to the applicant who had approached the Learned Tribunal therefore, appears to be proper. [See: (1996) 7 SCC 106 , State of Orissa and others versus Prajnaparamita Samanta and others]. 23. Having considered the entire facts and circumstances and reasonings recorded by the Learned Tribunal, we do not find infirmity in the directions of the Learned Tribunal for reevaluation of the answer sheet of the applicant relating to question no. 2(a) and 2(b) of Part-A Paper-II of LCDE examination held under the Notification dated 14.12.2009. Railway should get these two questions i.e. 2(a) and 2(b) under Part-A of Paper-II of the applicant evaluated by another examiner. 2(a) and 2(b) of Part-A Paper-II of LCDE examination held under the Notification dated 14.12.2009. Railway should get these two questions i.e. 2(a) and 2(b) under Part-A of Paper-II of the applicant evaluated by another examiner. Let this exercise be concluded within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. We do not sustain the other grounds of challenge raised by the petitioner as the reasonings of the Tribunal do not suffer from any such illegality in the circumstances discussed herein-above. Rest of the directions of the Learned Tribunal does not merit interference. However, we may observe that in case upon such exercise if merit list is to be recast due to the applicant getting higher marks than the other successful candidates, the Railways may consider creation of a supernumerary post to accommodate the applicant in order to avoid reversion of a selected / promoted candidate of the unreserved category. 24. In view of the reasons recorded and discussions made, we do not find any merit in the writ petition WPS No. 6047/2016, which is accordingly dismissed, however with certain observations. Petition dismissed