Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Pradip Kumar Shukla vs North Eastern Railway on 26 November, 2025
O.A./121/2023
(Reserved on 17.11.2025)
Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad
Original Application No.121 of 2023
th
Pronounced on this the 26 Day of November, 2025
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Mohan Pyare, Member (A)
1. Pradip Kumar Shukla aged about 28 years, son of Harendra
Shukla R/o Pali Jigna, Mirzapur, U.P.
2. Mohammad Husain aged about 32 years, son of Mohd. Lukman,
R/o Village Jangal Ramgarh Urf Chauri, Post Jangal Chauri,
District Gorakhpur, U.P.
3. Farook Ansari aged about 33 years Karamuddin Ansari, R/o
Khajuriya No.3, Sarpatahi Khurd, District Kushi Nagar, U.P.
4. Deepak Kumar aged about 33 years son of Ram Udagar Mandal,
R/o Pawara, Post Arga, P.S. Darbhanga, Bihar.
5. Jitendra Kumar Yadav, aged about 32 years S/o Shiv Karan Yadav,
R/o Village Pure Mataru Majare, Post Khagipur Sadwa, District
Raibareily, U.P.
6. Satendra Kumar aged about 35 years son of Suryamani Paswan,
Resident of Village Nosra Garhpura, Nalanda (Bihar).
7. Raj Kishor Kumar aged about 33 years, son of Saryug Singh,
Resident of Village Sher, Post Sidhwawya, District Gopalganj,
Bihar.
8. Indresh Maurya aged about 32 years, son of Ram Lakhan Maurya,
R/o Village Nanansai, Post Atarampur, District Prayagraj, U.P.
9. Shyam Ji, aged about 33 years, son of Guru Prasad, Resident of
Godhnehar Ka Purwa, Post Gaddhopur, District Ayodhya, U.P.
10. Pramod Kumar aged about 34 years son of Chandrama Singh, R/o
Chipura, Post Chilar, P.S. Azimabad, District Bhojpur.
11. Atul Kumar aged about 36 years son of Dashrath Singh, Resident
of Village & Post Shivpur P.S. Nawanagar, District Buxar (Bihar).
12. Pintu Kumar aged about 35 years son of Shambhu Yadav, R/o
Village Navtoliya, Post munger, P.S. Kasim Bazar, District
Munger (Bihar).
13. Balram Kumar aged about 35 years son of Vishwanath Mahto R/o
Village & Post Bhutahi, P.S. Sonabarsa, District Sitamarhi (Bihar).
MADHU KUMARI
Digitally signed by
MADHU KUMARI
Page 1 of 12
O.A./121/2023
14. Navin Kumar aged about 42 years son of Ram Chandra Bhagat,
R/o Village Lachhua, Post Mahuava, P.S. Bathanaha, District
Sitamarhi, (Bihar).
15. Amit Kumar aged about 33 years son of Ram Chandra Verma, R/o
Village Bhulanpur, Post Lakesar, District Lakhimpur Khiri, U.P.
16. Krishna Kumar aged about 34 years son of Shri Ram Bachan
Singh, Resident of Village Janjara, Post Malwar, District Rohtas
(Bihar).
17. Manoj Kumar aged about 33 years son of Yogendra, R/o Village
& Post Samdahan, District Sant Kabir Nagar, U.P.
18. Gyanendra Kumar aged about 34 years son of Ravindra Kumar,
R/o 196, Laxmi Gate Bahar Dadiyapura, District Jhansi, U.P.
19. Shiv Charan Meena aged about 35 years son of Bharat Lal Meena,
Resident of Village Badekhan, Post Bilona Kalan, District Dausa
(Rajasthan).
20. Lal Sahab aged about 35 years son of Narendra Singh, Resident of
Village Bijalpur, Post Mandanpur, Tehsil Koil, District Aligarh,
U.P.
21. Mukesh Kumar Shah aged about 32 years son of Vishnudev Shah,
R/o Village Bihwarpur, Post Madhurapur, P.S. Bidupur, District
Vaishali (Bihar).
22. Hariom Meena aged about 34 years, son of Lallu Ram Meena,
Resident of Village Hajya Ka Baj, Post Maheshwara Kalan,
District Dausa (Rajasthan).
23. Sitaram Meena aged about 32 years son of Hari Narayan Meena,
R/o Ram Nagar, Birasana, Tehsil Andhi, District Jaipur
(Rajasthan).
24. Raushan Kumar aged about 35 years son of Shashi Bhushan
Kumar, R/o Bhudhu Chak Barmasia Katihar, (Bihar). All
applicants are presently working in grade pay of Rs. 1800/- at
North Eastern Railway Gorakhpur.
25. Ranjeet Kumar, aged about 33 years S/o Baldev Prasad, R/o
Village Devchand Bigaha, Post Amain, District Jahanabad
(Bihar).
26. Anoop Kumar, aged about 25 years, S/o Chhatu Lal Prasad
Resident of Village Manjhagarh, District Gopalganj (Bihar)
27. Amarnath Shah, aged about 37 years S/o Nand Kishor Shah,
Resident of Village and Post Nasariganj, District Rohtash (Bihar).
MADHU KUMARI
Digitally signed by
MADHU KUMARI
Page 2 of 12
O.A./121/2023
28. Rajiv Kumar aged about 34 years S/o Kusum Lal Mandal,
Resident of Village & Post Basbihi, District Supaul (Bihar).
29. Suresh Meena aged about 37 years S/o Shri Ram Chandra,
Resident of Sawai Madhopur (Rajasthan)
30. Ashish Kumar Yadav aged about 34 years S/o Ram Preet Yadav,
R/o Village Tenuavishambharpur, Post Campierganj, District
Gorakhpur, U.P.
31. Ram Babu Rai, aged about 34 years S/o Bhola Rai, Resident of
Village Vibhutipur, Post Vibhutipur, District Samastipur (Bihar).
...Applicants
By Advocate: Shri Vinod Kumar
Versus
1. Union of India through General Manager North Eastern Railway,
Gorakhpur-273012.
2. Railway Recruitment Cell North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur.
3. Principal Chief Personnel Officer North Eastern Railway
Gorakhpur.
...Respondents
By Advocate: Shri Krishna Kumar Ojha
Shri K.P. Singh
ORDER
By Hon'ble Mr. Mohan Pyare, Member (A) Present Original Application has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following relief:
"i. To issue an order or direction in the suitable nature quashing the impugned order dated 07.06.2021 and 09.12.2022 issued from the office of respondent no.2 (Annexure No.A-1 to the original application) ii. To issue an order or direction in the suitable nature directing the respondent no.2/competent authority to release the panel of selected candidate of Group-1 vacancies to the post of Assistant Loco-Pilot grade pay of Rs.1900/- level-2 within stipulated period which may specified by this Hon'ble Tribunal.
MADHU KUMARI Digitally signed by MADHU KUMARI Page 3 of 12 O.A./121/2023 iii. To issue any order or direction, which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
iv. To award the cost of the application to the applicant."
2. Brief facts of this case are that all the applicants are permanent group 'D' employees of the respondents department and all of them are still working as Group 'D' employees with grade pay of Rs.1800/- in different divisions of North Eastern Railway Gorakhpur. An employment notice No.NER/RRC/GDCE/2018 dated 21.06.2018 was issued from the office of respondent no.2, whereby total 350 vacancies were notified group wise namely Group-1 to Group-8 and number of vacancies were also specified against each and every group. All the applicants, being eligible, applied against the aforesaid notification for the post of Assistant Loco Pilot in grade pay of Rs.1900/- pay Level-2 for which a total of 71 vacancies were notified. The applicant participated in the CBT-1 examination conducted on 23.12.2018, CBT-2 examination conducted on 04.05.2019 and in the results declared on 25.02.2019 and 20.09.2019 respectively, all the applicants were declared successful. Thereafter, in the next process, all the selected candidates were called for aptitude test for the post of Assistant Loco-Pilot on 15.10.2019 conducted by the respondent no.2, in which they have been declared successful by means of result declared by respondent no.2 on 13.12.2019. In the last process all the applicants were called for document verification on 09.01.2020 and after document verification of the applicants they were called for medical examination on 18.01.2020, in which all of them appeared and were declared fit under the category A-1 to the post of Assistant Loco-Pilot against which they applied under the notification dated 21.06.2018. Thereafter final result of successful candidates was declared by the respondent no.2 on the official website, whereby all the applicants were found selected against the notified vacancies to the post of Assistant Loco Pilot in grade pay of Rs. 1900/- pay Level-2. A photocopy of the result of selected candidates is being annexed herewith and marked as Annexure No. A-3A to this original application with Compilation MADHU KUMARI Digitally signed by MADHU KUMARI Page 4 of 12 O.A./121/2023 No. II. It is stated that respondent no.2 thereafter released the panel of selected candidates who have been selected against the vacancies notified under Group-2 to Group-8 except the Group-1 on 14.12.2020 and thereafter the posting of the all selected candidates have been given as per group wise vacancies, leaving the vacancies of Group-1 only and no reasons whatsoever have been communicated to the applicants as to why their panel have yet not been released. Feeling aggrieved, all the applicants jointly and separately submitted their grievances through their representation dated 05.06.2021 in the office of respondent no.2 seeking therein the release of their panel against the selected post of Assistant Loco-Pilot under the notification dated 21.06.2018, in reply to which the respondent no.2 issued a letter dated 07.06.2021 whereby it was informed that since vacancies notified under Group-1 to the post of Assistant Loco-Pilot and Technician-3 are not available, hence panel cannot be issued and that no instruction have been issued from the office of General Manager (P) about availability of the vacancies and as and when suitable vacancies and instruction are received, the process of release of panel would take place.
3. Submission of learned counsel for the applicants is that it is most surprising fact and contradictory in itself that if the vacancies were not available with the department, then under which circumstances the 71 vacancies were notified in Group-I for the post of Assistant Loco-Pilot in Grade Pay of Rs. 1900/- pay Level-2, therefore it appears that either notification was false or the said letter dated 07.06.2021 issued from the office of respondent no.2 is false and vague. Since the railway board itself issued a circular No. RBE No.17/2023 dated 17.01.2023 to the General Manager (P)/All Zonal Railways/PUS with clear instruction that all the notified vacancies under GDCE quota may be filled-up timely without causing further delay. Whereas prior to that the railway board itself issued previous circular No. RBE No. 112/2018 with clear instruction to the all Zonal Managers of the Indian Railways about filling up the departmental vacancies in time without causing MADHU KUMARI Digitally signed by MADHU KUMARI Page 5 of 12 O.A./121/2023 unnecessary delay by delegating the power to enhance the vacancies under the departmental quota, but never instructed to reduce the vacancies or withhold the panel. Since the selection of the applicants were made under the 25% GDCE quota from the office of respondent no.2 by notification dated 21.06.2018 and as such they cannot change their stand and the exact vacancies as per the notification. Thus, it is argued that the grounds taken in the orders impugned is not sustainable in the eyes of law and liable to be quashed and set-aside.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants has further argued that all the applicants were still waiting for their panel list after being selected against the notified vacancies in Group-1 category on the post of Assistant Loco-Pilot grade pay of Rs. 1900/- Level-2 having no fault on their part. However, during pendency of the aforesaid original application the respondents have issued an order/list of selected candidates dated 02.03.2023, in which the name of applicants has not been included without assigning any reason, whereas, the applicants have already been declared selected against the notified vacancies under the notification dated 21.06.2018. General Departmental Competitive Examination (hereinafter referred to as 'GDCE') was held in the year 2018 itself and the panels of selected candidates were issued against group 2 to 8 notified vacancies, but no final panel was issued against the selected candidates for the vacancies notified for group-1, and the respondents had taken excuse that vacancies meant for Technician-III as well as Assistant Loco Pilot notified in group-1 are not available. Now a list of several candidates have been issued on 02.03.2023 as additional list of candidates for documents verification under the notification dated 21.06.2018 GDCE for the exam of Group-1 (for Technician-III), but nothing has been disclosed about empanelment of the applicants/selected candidates to the post of Assistant Loco Pilot meant for Group-1 vacancies. It is pointed out that this O.A. has already been admitted on 27.02.2023 and under section 19(4) of the Tribunal Act 1985 "Where an application has been admitted by a Tribunal MADHU KUMARI Digitally signed by MADHU KUMARI Page 6 of 12 O.A./121/2023 under subsection (3), every proceeding under the relevant service rules as to redressal of grievances in relation to the subject-matter of such application pending immediately before such admission shall abate and save as otherwise directed by the Tribunal, no appeal or representation in relation to such matter shall thereafter be entertained under such rules." Meaning thereby the respondents/competent authority have no power and jurisdiction to issue another list of selected candidates without having leave of this Tribunal and as such the order/list dated 02.03.2023 is quite illegal and unwarranted in the eyes of law. Apart from the aforesaid the actions of the respondents department are contrary to the provisions laid down under the Railway Board Master Circular.
5. Submission of learned counsel for the respondents is that due to some administrative reasons, the vacancies for Assistant Loco Pilots were reduced to zero and the competent authority decided to issue the panel for Technician III post which include the candidates of Technician III and Assistant Loco Pilot (ALP) both as per merit because both the posts lie in the same group i.e. group-1. It was also mentioned in the Employment notice in para 12 that "The number of vacancies shown in this notification is provisional and the same is likely to increase or decrease depending upon the actual requirement of the Railway. Railway Administration reserves the right to modify the vacancies or cancel this notification without assigning any reasons." Therefore, the action of the respondents is completely legal. The vacancies for ALP has been reduced to zero with the approval of the General Manager (competent authority) of North Eastern Railway and it was decided to publish the panel of suitable candidates for the post of Technician III.
6. In reply, learned counsel for the applicants has argued that it is undisputed fact that GDCE vacancies are always notified as 25% against direct recruitment vacancies. The base of GDCE vacancies are direct recruitment, if direct recruitment vacancies lapse then MADHU KUMARI Digitally signed by MADHU KUMARI Page 7 of 12 O.A./121/2023 GDCE vacancies also lapse but if the vacancies under direct recruitment survive then the vacancies under GDCE quota would also survive. In the present case since vacancies meant for direct recruitment pertaining to year 2018 bearing notification no. RRB/GKP/01/2018 total vacancies 1685 were filled up meaning thereby its 25% vacancies would also survive and are liable to be filled up, but respondents illegally and arbitrarily declared the vacancies under GDCE quota to the post of ALP (Assistant LOCO Pilot) nil without disclosing any reason so far. It is further noteworthy that as per Railway Board Letter no. 112/2018 one vacancy reserved for GDCE quota against three notified vacancies under direct recruitment quota and the respondents have already selected total 1685 candidates under direct recruitment quota and as such its GDCE quota ought to have been cleared as per rule and cannot be declared nil, since the respondents have only declared the 71 post of ALP as nil under GDCE quota whereas other notified vacancies under the said quota are being cleared, while issuing recent panel of some candidates against group-1 vacancies.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has argued that Notification No. NER/RRC/GDCE/2018 dated 21.06.2018 for recruitment on the various posts including 71 posts of Assistant Loco Pilots amongst serving railway employee under General Departmental Competitive Exam (GDCE) scheme was published on 21.06.2018. In pursuance of notification of GDCE 2018 dated 21.6.2018 of Railway Recruitment Cell Gorakhpur the selection process of Assistant Loco Pilots were continuing. Even before the final panel of Assistant Loco Pilot under GDCE 2018 was completed, the panel of Assistant Loco Pilot under CEN 01/2018 was received from Railway Recruitment Board, Gorakhpur which was more than the available vacancies. In North Eastern Railway 1042 posts of Assistant Loco Pilots were vacant from which an indent had to be sent to Railway Recruitment Board (RRB) but due to mistake, excess number of posts were sent in the Indent, then the excess candidates were adjusted for appointment on the post in question in other zonal railways of India i.e. Western MADHU KUMARI Digitally signed by MADHU KUMARI Page 8 of 12 O.A./121/2023 Railway, Charchgate Mumbai, North East Frontier Railway, Maligaon, Gowahati, South Eastern Railway, Kolkata. Due to non availability of vacancies of Assistant Loco Pilot, the competent authority took the decision to zero out the vacancy of Assistant Loco Pilot under GDCE 2018 as the post was not available. In view of the facts and submissions mentioned above it is clear that due to mistake the excess posts of Assistant Loco Pilots have been notified then the competent authority of recruitment cell rectified the aforesaid mistake which is just, proper and legal in the eye of law.
8. Learned counsel for the respondents has clarified that the vacancy position and number of posts for which panel has been issued/filled up regarding advertisement (Notification) no. CEN 01/2018 i.e. against Direct Recruitment RRB/Gorakhpur is as follows:- The total vacancy of ALP against direct recruitment in 2018 was 1177 for which indent should have been placed to RRB/Gorakhpur. Indent was placed through Online Indenting System and it was the first time when online indents were placed. Instead of placing indent for 1177 posts, it was wrongly placed for 1681 posts. So total posts advertised against Direct Recruitment in 2018 was 1681 and total number of posts for which panel has been issued/filled up against vacancy is 1657 is as under:-
(i) in the year 2019- 1377 candidates were empanelled,
(ii) in the year 2020- 213 candidates were empanelled,
(iii) in the year 2021- 54 candidates were empanelled,
(iv) in the year 2022-13 candidates were empanelled, The excess panel over and above of total vacancy were sent to other zonal railway i.e. Western Railway, NF Railway and SE Railway. After perusal of letters dated 10.12.2024 and 02.01.2025 it is clear that no vacancy of ALP is left as the vacancy of ALP advertised against GDCE 2018 has been reduced to zero by the competent authority. Since the posts of Technician III and ALP were kept in same exam group (Exam Group-1) in GDCE 2018, MADHU KUMARI Digitally signed by MADHU KUMARI Page 9 of 12 O.A./121/2023 the competent authority has approved the recruitment and issued the panel of eligible candidates of Assistant Loco Pilot and Technician-III for the post of Technician-III only who possess the prescribed qualification for the post of Technician-III advertised under Examination Group-1 on the basis of integrated merit against the notified vacancies of Technician-III. Consequently the panels for Technician-III have been issued. Therefore, in absence of vacancy of ALP the answering respondents are unable to consider the request of the applicants.
9. We have considered the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire documents on record.
10. It has already been recorded while considering and rejecting the prayer for interim relief in the matter on 13.04.2023 that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shankarsan Dash Vs. Union of India reported in (1991) 3 SCC 47 has been pleased to observe that a candidate does not acquire an indefeasible right to an appointment merely because they have been selected or empanelled. The government has the discretion to decide not to fill all vacancies, but this decision must be made in a bona fide and non-arbitrary manner. Now the question arises whether the decision to zero out the vacancies advertised for Assistant Loco Pilots vide the employment notice No.NER/RRC/GDCE/2018 dated 21.06.2018 is arbitrary or not.
11. On verification of the facts available in the file, as stated by the respondents, there was an error in assessment of vacancies. In place of 1177 actual vacant posts for ALP, they have communicated a total vacancy of 1681 posts. When it came to their knowledge, they have tried to adjust the qualified candidates in Technician Grade III who have qualification for such post as well as they have also contacted other zones asking for vacancies for ALP in their zones. In spite of all their efforts, they could not accommodate the applicants in any of the vacancies. When we see the notification, it clearly mentions in paragraph no.1.19 that RRB reserves the right to change/modify/add/delete any terms & MADHU KUMARI Digitally signed by MADHU KUMARI Page 10 of 12 O.A./121/2023 conditions of recruitment under the CEN as necessitated and applicable at any stage and in paragraph 2.0, it clearly mentions that vacancies may increase and decrease as per the requirement of the Railway Administration (Revised Vacancy Table will be published accordingly).
12. In a letter dated 20.10.2021, Ministry of Railway/Railway Board has given clear instructions to N.E. Railways to fix responsibility with a major penalty charge sheet at an appropriate level for excess indenting and the same may be communicated to the Board's office. Here is relevant to reproduce the letter:-
भारत सरकार/GOVERNMENT OF INDIA रे ल मंत्रालय/MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS (रे लवे बोर्ड/RAILWAY BOARD) No. 2020/E(RRB)/23/02 New Delhi, dated. 20.10.2021 The General Manager (P), North Eastern Rollway, Gorakivpur.
South Eastern Railway, Kolkata Southern Railway, Chennai.
Sub: Diversion of surplus ALD candidates empanelled against CEM No.01/2018 from N.E.Railway to South Eastern Railway.
Ref: (i) Railway Board's Letter No. 2020/E(RRB)/23/02 dated 21.09.20 &10.9.21
(ii) N.E.Railway's letter No. 227/ALP/V-II dated 16.04.21
(iii) Southern Railway's letter No. P(S)S63/VI/ALP/VOIIX(pt) dated 27.09.21 The approval of Competent Authority inter-alia had been conveyed for diversion of 54 surplus ALP candidates empanelled against CEN No. 01/2018 from NE. Railway to South Railway vide board's letter of even number dated 10.09.21.
2. Southern Railways has informed that it is not feasible to proceed further for appointment of the ALP papers of NER on Southern Railways. However, South Eastern Railway has advised that SER can accept 53 ALPs from NER for the panel issued under CEN-01/2018 if these candidates are surplus and unutilized by NER.
MADHU KUMARI Digitally signed by MADHU KUMARI Page 11 of 12 O.A./121/2023
3. Approval of competent authority to the proposal is hereby conveyed for diversion of 53 ALPS from NER for the panel issued under CEN-01/2018 to S.E. Railway subject to the following conditions:-
a) N.E. Railway to fix responsibility with major penalty charge sheet at an appropriate level for excess indenting and same may be communicated to Board's office.
b) Consent of candidates to be diverted to South Eastern Railway be obtained.
c) No empanelled candidate on South Eastern Railway is waiting for appointment in the concerned category to which these excess candidates are being adjusted.
d) The diversion should not involve change of category.
e) Appointments should also meet the other requirements of the post.
(Vidya Dhar Sharma) Director/Estt.(RRB) Railway Board Copy to: Chairman/RRB/Gorakhpur
13. On the basis of above consideration, it is clear that respondents have taken all sincere efforts to accommodate the applicants even though they have unapologetically mentioned that more than the actual vacancies available were communicated by the Railway Recruitment Board. In spite of their best effort, they could not accommodate the applicants. On the basis of above consideration, this Tribunal is of the opinion that the action of the respondents is neither arbitrary nor illegal. Thus, the O.A. is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed as such.
14. Accordingly, the O.A. stands dismissed with the direction to the respondents to take urgent action on the direction issued by the Railway Board in their letter dated 20.10.2021. All associated M.A.s also stand disposed of accordingly. No costs.
(Mohan Pyare) ( Justice Om Prakash VII)
Member (A) Member (J)
Madhu
MADHU KUMARI
Digitally signed by
MADHU KUMARI
Page 12 of 12