ORDER : 1. Petitioner has filed the petition challenging the order dated 16.10.2019 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’). 2. The petitioner has sought the following prayers in the petition:- I. This Hon’ble Court may kindly peruse the documents available on record and examine the same. II. It is submitted that Hon’ble Central Administrative Tribunal Jaipur Bench give order in the matter of Original Application Number 672/2017 to Quash and cancelled the Final Retention Test which was held on 02 May, 2017 by the order (oral) of the Hon’ble Central Administrative Tribunal Jaipur Bench in the matter of Original Application Number 710/2013 and in the order (oral) of Original Application Number 710/2013, it is clearly mentioned that question paper must be as provided by the Railway Board circular but respondents not obey the order (oral) of the Hon’ble Central Administrative Tribunal Jaipur Bench, so on the above ground punishment should be given to the respondents and 70 percent marks should be added in the answer of objective type questions but Hon’ble Central Administrative Tribunal Jaipur Bench not give punishment to the respondents and give one more opportunity to conduct again Final Retention Test and now respondent will get one more opportunity to prepare wrong answer key again and respondents will take revenge to the petitioner to declare fail if petitioner will be remain to fail to give correct answer of the asked questions in the question paper and in such a condition petitioner will permanently lost job opportunity for life, so petitioner request to the Hon’ble Court of Justice kindly quash and set-aside the order of the Hon’ble Central Administrative Tribunal Jaipur Bench which is given in the matter of original application number 672/2017 and is pronounced on 16.10.2019 (Annexure-1). III. III. It is submitted that respondents have not produce a circular which is issued by the ministry of Railways (Government of India) which prove that directly recruited section engineer (electrical) post is kept in safety category, so without legal documentary evidence Hon’ble Central Administrative Tribunal Jaipur Bench not mentioned in the order of original application number 672/2017 that what will be the passing marks of the final retention test which will be held within three month without giving 52 weeks training to the petitioner and which chance will be count which is against the repeat course circular of the ministry of railways (Government of India). It is submitted that petitioner was selected section engineer (electrical) from railway recruitment board Ajmer in the year of 2008 and illegal officer order issued by the office of Divisional Railway Manager Kota Division declare to the petitioner selected trainee section engineer (Electrical) from Railway Recruitment Board Ajmer on the ground of letter issued by the office of General Manager (Personnel Branch) issued on 17 March 2008 which not support the illegal office order which is issued on 18.8.2008 from the office of Divisional Railway Manager Kota Division, so petitioner request to the Hon’ble Court of justice kindly quash the illegal office order which is issued on 18.8.2008 (Annexure-12). IV. It is submitted that petitioner request to the Hon’ble Court of Justice kindly quash the result of final retention test dated 15 may, 2017 which was prepared on wrong answer key basis (annexure-2) and declare pass to the petitioner in the final retention test which was held on 02 may, 2017. It is submitted that respondents do termination of service of the petitioner on the illegal ground basis, so petitioner request to the Hon’ble Court of Justice kindly quash the order of termination of service of the petitioner dated 03 may, 2013 (Annexure-3). It is submitted that petitioner request to the Hon’ble Court of justice to give relaxation in passing marks upto 40 percent to the scheduled castes/ scheduled tribes trainees to protect their fundamental rights which are guaranteed in the constitution of India. It is submitted that petitioner request to the Hon’ble Court of Justice to give authority to conduct the final retention test to the railway recruitment board for the purpose to protect the legal interest of the scheduled castes/ scheduled tribes trainees. It is submitted that petitioner request to the Hon’ble Court of Justice to give authority to conduct the final retention test to the railway recruitment board for the purpose to protect the legal interest of the scheduled castes/ scheduled tribes trainees. It is submitted that respondents have declared failed to the petitioner by preparing wrong answer key at three times without giving 52 weeks training to the petitioner, so petitioner request to the Hon’ble Court of justice kindly count all above test the first final retention test. It is submitted that petitioner request to the Hon’ble Court of Justice to give order to the respondents to give full back payment/ wage at current money value to the petitioner from 18 August, 2008 with interest and give all promotional and other legal benefits which are in favour of the petitioner. V. It is submitted that petitioner request to the Hon’ble Court of Justice kindly declare directly recruited section engineer (electrical) post in Group-B Gazetted Officer post as according to the Gazette of India. VI. Cost of writ petition may kindly be awarded in favour of the petitioner.” 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that petitioner was appointed as a Trainee Section Engineer (Electrical) by the respondents vide letter dated 17.03.2008 and thereafter petitioner was sent for training vide order dated 18.08.2008. Petitioner completed fifty two weeks of training and thereafter he was required to pass the retention test before he could be appointed on regular basis. Petitioner was declared to have failed in the retention test vide letter dated 30.10.2009. Petitioner was served with a show cause notice dated 29.06.2010 alleging that he had suppressed the information regarding pendency of a criminal case against him and vide order dated 7.9.2010 services of the petitioner were terminated. Petitioner preferred O.A. No. 97/2012 and the same was allowed vide order dated 27.08.2012 and petitioner was reinstated in service as Trainee Section Engineer (Electrical). Thereafter, petitioner failed to clear the retention test and his services were terminated vide order dated 3.5.2013. Petitioner filed an Original Application before the Tribunal seeking a direction to the respondents to conduct one more retention test after giving sufficient time to him to prepare for the same. The said O.A. No. 710/2013 was allowed vide order dated 18.04.2017. 4. Thereafter, petitioner failed to clear the retention test and his services were terminated vide order dated 3.5.2013. Petitioner filed an Original Application before the Tribunal seeking a direction to the respondents to conduct one more retention test after giving sufficient time to him to prepare for the same. The said O.A. No. 710/2013 was allowed vide order dated 18.04.2017. 4. The operative part of the order dated 18.04.2017 reads as under:- “We also direct that examination will be given in the presence of some senior officers. If the applicant passes the retain test with 60% marks then he will be granted benefit otherwise he loses. Therefore we will fix a date with the consent of both the parties i.e. on 02/05/2017 at 10:30 AM at Division Office, Kota and applicant will be ready to face the examination on that day. Examination will be given by the applicant in the presence of some senior officers and the result will be published as early as possible but within two weeks thereafter. Applicant requests that the question paper formation must be as provided by the Railway Board circular. It is to be so.” 5. Thereafter, petitioner again appeared for the retention test but he failed to clear the said test and information was given to the petitioner by the respondents in this regard vide letter dated 15.05.2017. Hence, the Original Application-in-question was filed by the respondent. 6. It was the case of the petitioner that the retention test had not been held in terms of the circular issued by the Railway Board dated 10.07.2003. As per the said circular 70% marks were to be allotted for objective type questions, whereas, petitioner was made to answer objective type questions to the extent of 50 marks out of total 100 marks. Learned Tribunal while relying on the circular held that the question paper had not been framed by the respondents in terms of their own circular dated 10.07.2003. While framing question paper, seventy marks should have been allotted to objective type questions out of hundred marks, whereas, in the question paper which was placed on record, only fifty marks had been allotted to objective type questions. 7. While framing question paper, seventy marks should have been allotted to objective type questions out of hundred marks, whereas, in the question paper which was placed on record, only fifty marks had been allotted to objective type questions. 7. Learned Tribunal, thus, rightly came to the conclusion that the petitioner was liable to be granted one more opportunity to enable him to appear in the retention test as the question paper had not been framed by the respondents in terms of their own circular. 8. We have heard the petitioner who has appeared in person as well as the learned counsel for the respondent and have gone through the record available on the file, carefully. 9. The operative part of the impugned order dated 16.10.2019 reads as under:- “11. Given the above mentioned findings, we are of the considered view that the ends of justice would be met in this case with the following directions to the respondents:- i) The retention test taken by the applicant, (Annexure A/7), is quashed and cancelled. The applicant be permitted to take the test again with the question paper being framed strictly in accordance with the format prescribed in RBE No. 122/2003 of 10.07.2003, (Annexure A/16), and framed by an expert committee whose membership shall include, (but not be restricted to), the following:- (a) a representative/nominee of Research Design and Standards Organisation, (RDSO), (b) a representative/nominee of the Commissioner for Railway Safety and (c) a representative/nominee of the Indian Railway Institute of Electrical Engineering; (IRIEE). ii) The expert committee constituted as above shall take care to ensure that the format of the question paper is strictly as prescribed in RBE No.122/2003 of 10.07.2003 at Annexure A/16 and that the question framed not only lie within the matter covered in the training courses taken by the applicant but are also unequivocal in nature in that they are not capable of varying interpretation/answers. The committee shall also make suitable arrangements for supervision/invigilation. iii) In the event of the applicant clearing/passing the aforesaid retention test framed by the expert committee as aforesaid, his order of termination from service dated 03.05.2013, (Annexure A/3), will stand set aside from the date of the order itself, i.e. 03.05.2013 and he will be granted all consequential benefits. The committee shall also make suitable arrangements for supervision/invigilation. iii) In the event of the applicant clearing/passing the aforesaid retention test framed by the expert committee as aforesaid, his order of termination from service dated 03.05.2013, (Annexure A/3), will stand set aside from the date of the order itself, i.e. 03.05.2013 and he will be granted all consequential benefits. iv) The whole exercise as detailed above shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.” 10. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the learned Tribunal has ordered that one opportunity be granted to the petitioner to take the test again and it has been further directed that the respondents should prepare the question paper in terms of the Circular dated 10.7.2003 by constituting an expert committee. The questions framed should not only lie within the matter covered in the training courses taken by the petitioner but should also be unequivocal in nature so that they are not capable of varying interpretation/answers. The committee was also directed to make suitable arrangements for supervision/invigilation. The Union of India had also filed the petition [D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 213/2020, Union of India & Anr. vs. Narendra Kumar Chandel] challenging the impugned order passed by the Tribunal and the same was dismissed vide order dated 20.1.2020. 11. Thus, the Tribunal in the present case while exercising its jurisdiction has rightly granted opportunity to the petitioner to appear in a fresh retention test which is to be held by the respondents with the aid of an expert committee. 12. No ground for interference is made out. 13. Dismissed. 14. All the pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.