P. Santhosh Kumar and Others v Union of India and Others (WP(C) No.27319 of 2022)

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V THURSDAY, THE 1[ST]DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA,1944 ``` ## **`WP(C) NO. 27319 OF 2022`** ## **`PETITIONER/S:`** ``` 1P. SANTHOSH KUMAR AGED 40 YEARS S/O LATE P. PAKKIANATHAN, HEAD CONSTABLE, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NO. 1080, GOKULAM, KUZHIYANVILA, PAYARUMOODU, MULLOOR P.O, VIZHINJAM THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN 695 521. 2K. C. KUMARESSAN, AGED 37 YEARS S/O. K. CHIDAMBARAM, HEAD CONSTABLE, RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NO. 50 SIVAN KOIL STREET, PANDAMANGALAM P.O, PARAMATHIVELUR TALUK, NAMAKKAL DISTRICT, PIN - 637 208. 3A. SENTHIL KUMAR, AGED 47 YEARS S/O A. AYYARAPPAN, HEAD CONSTABLE, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NO. 46 NORTH STREET, ERIPURAKKARI, ADIRAMPATTINAM, PATTUKOTTAI TALUK, TANJAVUR DISTRICT, PIN - 614 701. 4S. JOHN SOLOMON, AGED 37 YEARS S/O. LATE G. SHRIL DHAS, HEAD CONSTABLE, RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE, INTEGRAL COACH FACTORY UNDER PRINCIPAL CHIEF SECURITY COMMISSIONER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, CHENNAI, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT 93/2, RAILWAY QUARTERS, EAST COLONY 5TH STREET, ICF, CHENNAI - 600 038. ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 27319 OF 2022 ``` ``` 2 ``` ``` 5S. KAVASKAR, AGED 38 YEARS S/O SATHASIVAN, CONSTABLE, RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NO. 141 D, RAILWAY MATHEWS COLONY, PARK TOWN, CHENNAI - 600 003. BY ADVS. SHAMEENA SALAHUDHEEN S.SIMY JISEMOL THOMAS AMITHA JAMES ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** ``` 1UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN RAILWAY BOARD, RAIL BHAVAN, RAISINA ROAD, NEW DELHI -110 001. 2DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL CUM NODAL CHIEF SECURITY COMMISSIONER, RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE (NODAL CSC, RULE 72 ASIPF SELECTION FOR THE YEAR 2021), HEADQUARTERS OFFICE, WESTERN RAILWAY, CHURCHGATE, MUMBAI - 400 020. 3THE DIVISIONAL SECURITY COMMISSIONER, RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE (CHAIRMAN, DEPARTMENTAL PROMOTION COMMITTEE, RULE 72 ASIPF SELECTION FOR THE YEAR 2021), RAJKOT DIVISION, WESTERN RAILWAY, GUJARAT - 360 001. 4THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL (ESTABLISHMENT) RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE, MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS, RAILWAY BOARD, RAIL BHAVAN, NEW DELHI-110001. ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 27319 OF 2022 ``` ``` 3 ``` ``` 5THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF SECURITY COMMISSIONER, RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE, HEADQUARTERS OFFICE, 6TH FLOOR, M M COMPLEX, CHENNAI - 600 003. 6ADDL.R6.DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL CUM CHIEF SECURITY COMMISSIONER, RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE (NODAL CSC FOR SELECTION OF ASI UNDER RULE 72 FOR THE YEAR 2022) WEST CENTRAL RAILWAY, JABALPUR, MADHYA PRADESH-482001. 7ADDL.R7.SR. DIVISIONAL SECURITY COMMISSIONER, RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE, (CHAIRMAN, DEPARTMENTAL PROMOTION COMMITTEE, RULE 72 ASI SELECTION FOR THE YEAR 2022) JHANSI DIVISION, NORTH CENTRAL RAILWAY, UTTAR PRADESH-284001. (ADDL.R6 & R7 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 21-10-2022 IN IA 2/2022 IN WP(C) 27319/2022). BY ADV MANU S., ASG OF INDIA SRI S MANU DSGI ``` ``` THISWRITPETITION(CIVIL)HAVINGCOMEUPFORADMISSION ON01.12.2022,THECOURTONTHESAMEDAYDELIVEREDTHE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 27319 OF 2022 ``` ``` 4 ``` ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioners herein are Railway Personnel working in the capacity either as ‘Head Constable’ or ‘Constable’ in the Railway Protection Force (RPF) in the Southern Railway. They have approached this Court seeking a declaration that the petitioners are eligible to be included in the selection panel for the Post of ‘Assistant Sub Inspector’ in the Railway Protection Force of Southern Railway against the Unreserved Vacancies (UR) and for a further direction to the 3rd respondent to reconsider the valuation and award the marks for the petitioners and include them in the selected panel of Assistant Sub Inspector, RPF. The petitioners also sought a declaration that the methodology of awarding marks adopted by the respondents is illegal and arbitrary. 2. The brief facts of the case are as under: The selection proceedings have been initiated by the respondents to assess and send the vacancy position of Assistant Sub Inspector (ASI), category-wise, as per the vetted roster, in terms of RPF Establishment Manual, 2019. As per the existing rules, specific directions were issued to follow the procedures related to the selection in accordance with the RPF Rules, 1987, the RPF Establishment Manual, 2019, and the extant provisions/guidelines. In ``` WP(C) NO. 27319 OF 2022 ``` ``` 5 ``` pursuance to the same, the Chairman, DPC, advised the Principal Chief Security Commissioner for all Zonal Railways to fill up the vacancies of ASI as a whole under Rule 72 of the RPF Rules for the post notified for the respective Zone. Of the ‘1970 vacancies’ assessed all over India, ‘145’ vacancies (out of which ‘117’ were reserved for the ‘Unreserved category’, ‘21’ in the ‘Reserved category’ and ‘7’ in the ‘SC/ST Category’) were notified for selection for vacancies. The petitioners, having met the criteria, appeared and applied in the Computer Based Test (CBT) allotted in the Southern Railway. The CBT was conducted across the nation simultaneously on 28.10.2021. The petitioners state that the information received by them under the Right to Information Act would reveal that Question Nos. ‘10’ and ‘70’ of the Master question papers were ordered to be ignored for the reasons marked against each question. Finding that their names are not been included in the Exhibit P6 panel for provisional empanelment, they submitted Exhibit P8 representation. However, Exhibit P9 letter was issued by the respondents, wherein it is stated that the petitioners calculated the marks wrongly and the marks were awarded duly following the guidelines of the RPF Establishment Manual, 2019. It is also stated that the petitioners did not meet the requisite criteria for the evaluation of service records. According to the petitioners, they have answered Question No. ‘70’ correctly, and by not considering the question for ``` WP(C) NO. 27319 OF 2022 ``` ``` 6 ``` evaluation, they were put at a disadvantage. If Question No. ‘70’ was taken for evaluation, they would have qualified. It is also stated that, after ignoring two questions, the respondents ought to have calculated the percentage as 60% out of 78. They contend that the marks obtained for ‘78’ questions ought to have been equated to 60% of evaluated questions, i.e., 60% of 78. If the calculations were carried out as above, the resultant qualifying marks would have been over ‘46.80’, and all the petitioners would have been empanelled. The petitioners have asserted that they have impeccable service records, as three of them have scored ‘18 marks’ and above out of ‘20 marks,’ and two of them secured ‘20 marks’ for the record of service. The petitioners also contend by referring to the Establishment Manual and the Rules that the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) ought to have rounded off the marks obtained by the petitioners’ mark to the nearest full mark, i.e., ‘48’ as all the petitioners scored more than ‘47.5 marks’. It is further stated that the validity of Exhibit P6 selection panel for the post of Assistant Sub Inspector under Rule 72 is for one year from the date of its publication, and out of the ‘117 UR vacancies’ only ‘73’ have been filled up as of now as per the panel published and ‘44’ vacancies still remain unfilled. It is on these assertions that this writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs: ``` WP(C) NO. 27319 OF 2022 ``` ``` 7 ``` - i) To declare that the petitioners are eligible to be included in the selection panel for the post of Assistant Sub Inspector in Railway Protection Force of Southern Railway against the UR Vacancies. - ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction directing the 3rd respondent to reconsider the valuation and award the marks for the petitioners and include them in the selected panel of Assistant Sub Inspector, Railway Protection Force. - iii) Declare that the methodology of awarding marks adopted by the respondents is illegal and arbitrary - iv) Issue a writ of mandamus to revise and recast Ext.P6 by making evaluation on the basis of Ext.P14. 3. In view of the urgency projected by the petitioners, the respondents were directed to place on record their version. Initially, a statement for and on behalf of respondents 1 to 5 was filed by the DSGI. As it was mentioned that certain typographical errors have crept in, the respondents were permitted to place on record an additional statement. In the additional statement, which was placed on record, it is stated that the ASI Selection 2021 under Rule 72 was conducted duly following RPF Rules, 1987, RPF Establishment Manual, 2019, and other extant provisions. It is stated that respondents 2 and 4 did not attend Question No.10, and the scores mentioned in the writ petition are incorrect. Questions No.10 and 70 of the Master Question Papers were ignored for evaluation. It is stated that selection was held on an All India basis by the Departmental Promotion Committee, and the candidates appearing for the selection are considered for the vacancy ``` WP(C) NO. 27319 OF 2022 ``` ``` 8 ``` of their respective zones. Southern Railway staff are considered for the Southern Railway vacancy alone. The candidates had the option to choose the default language for attempting the question paper with the facility to see the question in Hindi and English during the exam as per the provision provided in RPF Establishment Manual, 2019. The candidates were also given detailed instructions before the exam. Therefore, Question No.70 of the Master Question Paper having discrepancies in Hindi and English versions due to translation errors, was ignored for all candidates who attempted the question, and their evaluation was made out of the remaining valid questions to ensure equality and fairness in the examination process. This was done to avoid any discrimination among candidates appearing in the Hindi or English Medium. To have a fair and equitable chance, the Departmental Promotion Committee has taken a decision to delete two questions and considered Question No. 99 of the Master Question Paper for evaluation. It was based on the remaining valid questions attempted by the candidates that evaluation was carried out. The marks obtained were also rationalized to ensure fairness and equality by duly following the provisions of the RPF Establishment Manual, 2019, and the RRB Norms. Insofar as Question No. 99 of the Master Question Paper is concerned, the same was evaluated, and therefore, rationalization does not arise. The details of the evaluation of the petitioners were also provided by ``` WP(C) NO. 27319 OF 2022 ``` ``` 9 ``` ## way of a table, which is as under: |Sl.<br>No|Name|Total<br>Attempted<br>by<br>candidate<br>including<br>question<br>with<br>discrepancy|Total correct<br>answers by<br>candidate<br>excluding<br>question<br>with<br>discrepancy|Total<br>Wrong<br>answers by<br>candidate<br>excluding<br>question<br>with<br>discrepancy|Total no. of<br>discrepancy<br>questions<br>(Q10 & Q70)<br>attempted by<br>candidate|Total valid<br>question<br>attempted<br>by<br>candidate|Raw score<br>based on<br>total valid<br>questions<br>attempted<br>by<br>candidate|60% for 78<br>questions or<br>79 questions<br>prescribed<br>for UR<br>candidate|60% for 78<br>questions or<br>79 questions<br>prescribed<br>for UR<br>candidate|Prorated<br>marks to<br>Max 80<br>Marks<br>(Cut off<br>48 Marks)| |---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---| |**A**|**B**|**C**|**D**|**E**|**F**|**G**|**H=D-(E/3)**|**I**||**J=(H/G)***<br>**80**| |||||||||**78**|**79**|| |1|P Santhosh<br>Kumar|75|53|20|2|78|46.33333|46.8|-|47.52136| |2|K C Kumaresan|63|51|11|1|79|47.33333|-|47.4|47.86325| |3|A Senthil Kumar|79|54|23|2|78|46.33333|46.8|-|47.52136| |4|S. John Solomon|68|52|15|1|79|47.00000|-|47.4|47.59494| |5|S Kavaskar|74|53|19|2|78|46.66667|46.8|-|47.86325| ||There is no change in percentage of raw marks & percentage of prorated Marks and all above candidates have<br>scored below 60%. Therefore, none of these candidates are qualified for the ASI selection U/R - 72|||||||||| 4. It is stated that petitioners 2 and 4 attempted 79 valid questions, and the others attempted 78. It is further stated that there is no change in the percentage of prorated marks, and all the above candidates scored below 60%. It is stated that none of the candidates were qualified for ASI selection. As the petitioners have all obtained less than the qualifying cut-off mark of 48 prescribed for UR candidates, the question of assessment of service records does not arise. Only ‘73 UR’ candidates of Southern Railway qualified for the ``` WP(C) NO. 27319 OF 2022 ``` ``` 10 ``` CBT written examination, and the rest of the staff failed to obtain the minimum required marks of 48 (60%). Being a limited Departmental Competitive Exam, only merit is considered and not seniority. Four chances are given to each staff during their service period, and the petitioners are also entitled to four chances. The vacancies which have not been filled will be included in the next notification. It is further stated that the analogy for the evaluation of marks is for all those who attended written exams on an All India basis and not limited to Southern Railway. 5. Smt. Shameena Salahudeen, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, would refer to the RPF Rules, 1987, a copy of which is produced as Exhibit P10 and specifically to clause 70.1, the table attached to Clause 70.5, the guidelines for Departmental Promotional Committee, which is made mention of in Clause 71 and also Sub Clause 72.3, to substantiate her contention that the action taken by the respondents cannot be countenanced. The learned counsel would also refer to the RPF Establishment Manual, 2019, to substantiate their contentions. Finally, the learned counsel would refer to the General Instructions, which is found in 204.5 of IREM Volume-I, and it is argued that the total marks in decimal of .5 or more should be a round-off to a next higher integer figure. ``` WP(C) NO. 27319 OF 2022 ``` ``` 11 ``` 6. The learned DSGI, however, has vehemently opposed the submissions. The learned counsel submits that the general instructions made in Para 204.5 of IREM Volume-I cannot be made applicable, as in the instant case, what has been reduced is the percentage of marks and not marks. In so far as the contention of the learned counsel that the pro-rata calculation is done based on the calculation prepared in the additional statement, it is submitted that that assertion cannot be sustained. 7. I have considered the submissions advanced and gone through the records. 8. The first contention advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is that, after having ordered to omit Questions No. 10 and 70, respondents ought to have ordered the marks obtained for 78 questions equated to 60% in strict compliance with the above said Rules. To substantiate the said contentions, the learned counsel would refer to Ext.P5. In Ext. P5 Clause 35, it has been stated thus: 35. During analysis done by the exam conducting agency & DPC, it was found that there are following discrepancies in the master question paper (Attached as Annexure-A5) setup by the exam conducting agency as per RPF Establishment Manual 2019- a. Q. No. 10-All the Options were wrong due to typing error. b. Q. No. 99-Two Options viz. 1 & 3 were correct. ``` WP(C) NO. 27319 OF 2022 ``` ``` 12 ``` c. Q. No. 70-Hindi translation error, due to which Options 2 & 4 were correct for Hindi Version whereas only Option 4 was correct for English Version. DPC conducted a meeting on 13.11.2021 and in accordance with RRB Norms took the following decision unanimously, which was duly informed to Nodal CSC who advised that the DPC is competent to decide in the matter of evaluation of question paper:- - a. Q. No. 10 has all the four options wrong due to typing error done by the agency while setting up the question paper. Q. No. 70 has options 2 & 4 both as correct answers in Hindi version & only option 4 as correct option in English version of the paper due to language translation error done by the agency. Therefore, these two questions will be omitted for the evaluation of the candidates who have attempted these questions and their evaluation shall be done out of the remaining questions attempted by these candidates. Further, after omission of these two questions, marks obtained by candidates who have attempted either one or both of these questions, will be prorated to maximum score of 80 Marks to ensure fair treatment to all the candidates. - b. Q. No. 99 has option 1 & 3 both as correct answers. Therefore, Candidates will be awarded marks for choosing either of the correct options. This would ensure fair evaluation for all the candidates. 9. As is evident from the proceedings of the Departmental Promotion Committee nominated to conduct selection to the rank of ASI under the RPF Establishment Manual, Rule 72, what is discernible is that question No. 10 had all the options wrong due to typing error done by the agency while setting up the question paper. Question No. 70 has options 2 and 4, both as correct answers in the options, and only Option 4 is correct in the English version of the paper due to the language translation error done by ``` WP(C) NO. 27319 OF 2022 ``` ``` 13 ``` the agency. The Committee decided that these two questions shall be omitted for evaluation of the candidates who had attempted these questions, and their evaluation shall be done out of the remaining questions attempted. Further, it was ordered that, after the omission of these two questions, marks obtained by the candidates who have attempted either one or both of these questions will be prorated to a maximum score of ‘80 marks’ to ensure fair treatment to all the candidates. It is also stated that Question No. 99 has options 1 and 3, both as correct answers. Therefore, candidates will be awarded marks for choosing either of the correct answers. This will ensure a fair evaluation of the candidates. 10. The specific contention of Smt.Shameena Salahudeen is that, in so far as K.C. Kumaresan and S. John Solomon are concerned, the total number of valid questions attempted by the candidates has been put at ‘79’. The raw score based on the total valid questions attempted by K. C. Kumaresan is 47.33333. If two questions were ignored, the valid questions attempted by the candidates ought to have been ‘78’, and if that be the case, the pro-rata marks would have been over ‘48’. Similar is the case with S. John Solomon. The raw score based on the total valid questions attempted by John Solomon is ‘47’, and the total valid questions attempted by the candidate are put as ‘79’ instead of ‘78’. According to the learned counsel, the candidate ``` WP(C) NO. 27319 OF 2022 ``` ``` 14 ``` would have scored more than ‘48’ prorated marks if the number of total valid questions attempted by the candidate were put as ‘78’ instead of ‘79’. 11. The learned DSGI counters this assertion of the learned counsel by referring to Exhibit P5. Having gone through the report submitted by the Expert committee, I find that the Expert committee has clearly mentioned that after the omission of these questions’ marks, marks obtained by candidates who have attempted either one or both of these questions will be prorated to a maximum score of ‘80 marks’ to ensure fair treatment to all candidates. The Expert Committee has clearly stipulated the manner in which marks are to be calculated. Having considered the rival submissions, I am of the considered opinion that the course adopted by the respondents cannot be said to be improper. 12. The next contention advanced by the learned counsel is with regard to rounding off the marks. As is pointed out by the learned DSGI, the total mark is ‘80,’ and 60% of the total marks are cut-off marks which comes to 48. The provision which is relied on by the learned counsel is with regard to rounding off the marks and not rounding off the Percentage. I am of the view that Para 204.5 of IREM Volume-I General Instructions may not be applicable herein as ‘48’ is the rounding off percentage as the ‘60%’ of ‘80’ ``` WP(C) NO. 27319 OF 2022 ``` ``` 15 ``` and not marks. In that view of the matter, the said contention forcefully advanced by the learned counsel will not further the cause of the petitioners. 13. Though in view of the findings above, a further exercise is not warranted, the incidental question is whether this Court, in the exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, can embark upon an enquiry as to which of two possible views should govern the methodology adopted by the respondents in valuing the papers. In this context, it would be apposite to refer to the decision of the Apex Court in **University Grants Commission and Another v. Neha Anil Bobde (Gadekar)** - [(2013) 10 SCC 519], which dealt with the issue as to whether courts are to interfere in matters of academic nature. It was held as follows: "We are of the view that, in academic matters, unless there is a clear violation of statutory provisions, the regulations or the notification issued, the courts shall keep their hands off since those issues fall within the domain of the experts. This Court in University of Mysore vs. C.D. Govinda Rao, AIR 1965 SC 491, Tariq Islam v. Aligarh Muslim University (2001) 8 SCC 546 and Rajbir Singh Dalal v. Chaudhary Devi Lal University (2008) 9 SCC 284, has taken the view that the court shall not generally sit in appeal over the opinion expressed by expert academic bodies and normally it is wise and safe for the courts to leave the decision of academic experts who are more familiar with the problem they face, than the courts generally are. UGC as an expert body has been entrusted with the duty to take steps as it may think fit for the determination and maintenance of ``` WP(C) NO. 27319 OF 2022 ``` ``` 16 ``` standards of teaching, examination and research in the university. For attaining the said standards, it is open to UGC to lay down any "qualifying criteria", which has a rational nexus to the object to be achieved, that is, for maintenance of standards of teaching, examination and research”. 14. In this connection, it is also necessary to note the decision of a Division Bench of this Court, in **Nowfal. H. and Others v. Kerala Public** - **Service Commission and Others** [2014 (3) ILR 517 (Kerala)], placing reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Kanpur University through **Vice Chancellor and Others v. Samir Gupta and Others** - [(1983) 4 SCC 309], held that this Court in the exercise of its powers of judicial review, would not sit in judgment over the experts and attract the criticism that it was, in the guise of judicial review, effectively acting as an appellate court. 15. In the instant case, the respondents have devised a procedure to safeguard the interests of all concerned, including the petitioners. Having considered the matter from all perspectives, the action of the respondents cannot be said to be arbitrary or unreasonable so as to justify an interference with the valuation procedure adopted by them. I am of the view that the procedure prescribed under the Rules and Regulations has been complied with by the DPC while making the selection of the candidates. This Court finds ``` WP(C) NO. 27319 OF 2022 ``` ``` 17 ``` no arbitrariness in the calculation of pro-rata marks and the final marks awarded to the petitioners herein. 16. Having regard to the conclusions above, I am of the view that the petitioners have not made out any case for interference. This writ petition will stand dismissed. Sd/- ## **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V** **JUDGE** ``` avs ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 27319 OF 2022 ``` ``` 18 ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 27319/2022`** ## **`PETITIONER EXHIBITS`** ``` Exhibit P1A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. SELECTION U/R-72/ASI/2021, DATED 11-02-2021, ISSUED BY DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL CUM NODAL CHIEF SECURITY COMMISSIONER, WESTERN RAILWAY. Exhibit P2A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. SELECTION DPC/U/R-72/2021/1, DATED 01-03-2021 ISSUED BY THE CHAIRMAN-DPC (ASI SELECTION U/R 72). Exhibit P3A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO. X/P.535/ASIPF/RULE 72/2021, DATED 03-03-2021 ISSUED BY THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF SECURITY COMMISSIONER, RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE, CHENNAI. Exhibit P4A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. SELECTION DPC/U/R-72/2021/8, DATED 31-05-2021 ISSUED BY THE CHAIRMAN-DPC (ASI SELECTION U/R 72) ALONG WITH THE LIST OF THE CENTERS. Exhibit P5A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. SELECTION DPC/U/R-72/ASI/2021 DATED 17-11-2021 AND THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE DEPARTMENTAL PROMOTION COMMITTEE NOMINATED FOR CONDUCTING SELECTION TO THE RANK OF ASI/RPF UNDER RULE 72 OF RPF RULES 1987, DATED 17-11-2021. Exhibit P6A TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE ORDER NO.137/2021 VIDE LETTER NO. X/P535/ASIPF/RULE 72/2021, DATED 24-11-2021 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT. Exhibit P7A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 28-02-2022 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL COMMERCIAL MANAGER & CPIO, RAJKOT RAILWAY DIVISION UNDER THE RTI ACT . Exhibit P7ALETTER NO. RJC RTI/2021, DATED 07-04-2022 WITH ITS ENCLOSURES. ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 27319 OF 2022 ``` ``` 19 ``` ``` Exhibit P7 BTRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT. P7(A). ``` ``` Exhibit P8TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 4.1.2022 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN OF DPC. ``` ``` Exhibit P8 ATRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 23.12.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN OF DPC. Exhibit P8 BTRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 5.4.2022 SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD PETITIONER BEFORE THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, RAILWAY PROTECTION, FORCE, NEW DELHI. Exhibit P8 CTRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 9.5.2022 SUBMITTED BY THE 4TH PETITIONER BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN OF DPC. Exhibit P8 DTRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 23.12.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE 5TH PETITIONER BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN OF DPC. ``` ``` Exhibit P9TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. SELECTION DPC/U/R72/ASI/2022, DATED 26-07-2022 ISSUED TO THE 1ST PETITIONER. Exhibit P9 ATRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. SELECTION DPC/U/R72/ASI/2021, DATED 03-03-2022 ISSUED TO THE 2ND PETITIONER. Exhibit P9 BTRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. SELECTION DPC/U/R72/ASI/2021, DATED 03-03-2022 ISSUED TO THE 3RD PETITIONER. Exhibit P9 CTRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. SELECTION DPC/U/R-72/ASI/2022, DATED 25-07-2022 ISSUED TO THE 4TH PETITIONER. Exhibit P9 DTRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. SELECTION DPC/U/R72/ASI/2022, DATED 25-07-2022 ISSUED TO THE 5TH PETITIONER. ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 27319 OF 2022 ``` ``` 20 ``` - `Exhibit P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF RPF RULES, 1987.` ``` Exhibit P11A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE QUESTION PAPER ALONG WITH THE ANSWER KEY OBTAINED UNDER THE RTI ACT . ``` ``` Exhibit P12A TRUE COPY OF THE RTI APPLICATION DATED 07-06-2022 SUBMITTED BY SRI. V.G.SURESH. ``` - `Exhibit P13 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. SELECTION DPC/U/R72/ASI/2022, DATED 16-07-2022 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.` - `Exhibit P14 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. 2010/E(RRB)/25/27 PT., DATED 09-06-2011 ISSUED BY THE RAILWAY BOARD.` - `Exhibit P15 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF RPF ESTABLISHMENT MANUAL 2019.` - `Exhibit P16 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.SELECTION UR-72/ASI/2022 DATED 02/09/2022.` - `Exhibit P17 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT FOR FILLING UP THE VACANCIES TO THE POST OF ASIS IN THE SOUTHERN RAILWAY DATED 07/10/2022.` ``` EXHIBIT P18A TRUE COPY OF THE RBE No.142/2016 dated 28.11.2016 issued by the Railway Board. ```