Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Ankit Yadav vs M/O Railways on 22 January, 2026
1
Item No. 96 O.A. No. 132/2025
Court No. IV
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench,
New Delhi
O.A. No. 132/2025
Reserved on:- 08.01.2026
Pronounced on:- 22.01.2026
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Anand S. Khati, Member (A)
1. Ankit Yadav (Central Railway, RRC)
S/o Sh. Veersen Yadav
R/o 750/W2, Damodar Nagar, Kanpur (U.P.)
Presently at: 665/1 & 673/1, Sri Apartment, Ghitorni, Delhi -
110030
2. Vinod Kumar Sharma (Northern Railway, RRC)
S/o Shiv Prasad Sharma
R/o Ward No. 11, Subhash Nagar, P.S. Gour, District Basti,
Uttar Pradesh
3. Ravindra Kumar (Northern Railway)
S/o Lautoo Ram
R/o Village Bohana, Post Sema, Thana Jahanaganj,
District Azamgarh, Uttar Pradesh - 276131
4. Ritesh Kumar Singh (Chandigarh - Northern Railway)
S/o Kedar Nath Singh
R/o Village Chandi, Post Office Chandi, Thana Nagra,
District Ballia, Uttar Pradesh - 221711
5. Rahul Yadav (Northern Railway, New Delhi - Chhattisgarh)
S/o Ravindra Yadav
R/o Village Siyabasti, Post Bhopaura,
Thana & Tehsil Muhammadabad Gohana,
District Mau, Uttar Pradesh - 275302
6. Chetan Bhati (Western Railway, Mumbai)
S/o Banshi Lal
R/o Goyalon Ki Dhani, Kaliberi, Soorsagar,
Jodhpur, Rajasthan - 342024
7. Yogesh Kumar (Ahmedabad)
S/o Gajraj Singh
R/o Village Pachata, Post Bhatikra,
District Hathras, Uttar Pradesh - 204211
SNEHASNEHA
MEENA
MEEN 2026.01.23
13:58:43
A +05'30'
2
Item No. 96 O.A. No. 132/2025
Court No. IV
8. Ravendra (Western Railway, Mumbai)
S/o Radheshyam
R/o VPO Moloni, Tehsil Weir,
District Bharatpur, Rajasthan
9. Shivam (SWR, Hubli)
S/o Bhola Ram
R/o Village Mamnapur, Post Alampur,
District Fatehpur, Uttar Pradesh - 212659
10. Tariq Anwar (South Western Railway)
S/o Hafij Ahmad
R/o Katra Uttari, Ward No. 2, Bharatganj,
Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh - 212104
11. Ambreesh Agrahari (NWR, Ajmer)
S/o Babu Lal Agrahari
R/o Village & Post Mahrajganj,
District Sultanpur, Uttar Pradesh - 227808
12. Sashikant Sharma (SER, Ranchi)
S/o Surendra Sharma
R/o House No. 2/20, Netaji Nagar, Panbasti,
P.O. Nabanagar, District North 24 Parganas,
West Bengal
13. Badal Kumar Verma
R/o Village Kheskari,
District Giridih, Jharkhand - 825320
...Applicants
(By Advocates: Mr. Shirkant Prasad with Mr. Ritik)
Versus
1. Union of India
Through the Ministry of Railways,
Through its Secretary,
Rail Bhavan, Raisina Road,
New Delhi - 110001
2. Railway Recruitment Board
Through the Ministry of Railways,
Rail Bhavan, Raisina Road,
New Delhi - 110001
3. Railway Recruitment Board
Through the Executive Director (Establishment),
SNEHASNEHA
MEENA
MEEN 2026.01.23
13:58:43
A +05'30'
3
Item No. 96 O.A. No. 132/2025
Court No. IV
Railway Board, Rail Bhavan,
Raisina Road, New Delhi - 110001
4. Union of India (MSDE)
Through the Controller of Examination,
Director General of Training,
Ministry of Skill Development & Entrepreneurship,
7th Floor, New Kaushal Bhawan,
Near Safdarjung Railway Station,
Chanakyapuri, New Moti Bagh,
New Delhi - 110023
...Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. Ronak Karanpuria)
SNEHASNEHA
MEENA
MEEN 2026.01.23
13:58:43
A +05'30'
4
Item No. 96 O.A. No. 132/2025
Court No. IV
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J) :
In the present O.A. filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicants have prayed for the following reliefs:-
"A. Honourable court may be pleased to quash and set aside the representation reply of 28.02.2023 which is decided Capraciously without considering 25.01.2022 circular of R- 4(As Annexure P4) & Existing provisions of Law & Facts Hence is against the Article 14,16 and 21 of the constitution of india.
B. Honourable court may be pleased to direct the respondent to offer them appointment letters by considering the order dated 17.08.2022 and their NCVT Certificates as eligibility criteria for giving weightage to apprentice & exemption from the said NCVT exam certificate was further development made prospectively after 3 year of releasing advertisement, unless ineligible for other reasons. the C. Honourable court may be pleased to issue any other order/judgement etc in the interest of justice."
2. Highlighting the facts of the case, learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the present Original Application arises out of recruitment notified vide CEN RRC 01/2019 dated 23.02.2019 and constitutes the second round of litigation, wherein the applicants, belonging to the Course Completed Act Apprentices (CCAA) category, challenge the continued arbitrary denial of CCAA benefits despite their undisputed eligibility. Although the advertisement prescribed under Para 12.2 only that apprenticeship be completed and the NCVT (NAC) Certificate be produced at the stage of Document Verification, the respondents, after an inordinate SNEHASNEHA MEENA MEEN 2026.01.23 13:58:43 A +05'30' 5 Item No. 96 O.A. No. 132/2025 Court No. IV delay of more than three years in conducting the CBT (from 17.08.2022 onwards), introduced post-advertisement modification links dated 22.07.2022, 30.07.2022 and 08.09.2022, granting additional weightage and benefits to candidates who had completed apprenticeship prior to the cut- off date, thereby altering the selection criteria mid-stream and excluding the applicants.
2.1. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that all the applicants had completed one year of apprenticeship and obtained valid NCVT Certificates well before Document Verification conducted in 2023, and in many cases even prior to CBT, fully satisfying the operative eligibility condition under Para 12.2. The arbitrariness is further aggravated by subsequent policy relaxations, including retrospective nullification of the NCVT Theory Examination w.e.f. 01.01.2022 by the Ministry of Skill Development & Entrepreneurship, and exemption of CCAA candidates from PET with grant of NCVT weightage, rendering denial of benefit to the applicants wholly unjustified. 2.2. Highlighting the aforesaid, learned counsel submitted that the core issue, therefore, is whether eligibility of CCAA candidates is to be judged at the stage of Document Verification, as mandated by the advertisement or on the basis of an inconsequential condition of merely appearing in the NCVT theory examination before the cut-off date. In support, SNEHASNEHA MEENA MEEN 2026.01.23 13:58:43 A +05'30' 6 Item No. 96 O.A. No. 132/2025 Court No. IV reliance is placed on Bachhinderpal v. State of Punjab, (2000) 5 SCC 262, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that eligibility must be judged with reference to the stage at which it is finally tested, and on Sanjay Kumar Dixit v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2019) 17 SCC 373, reaffirming that relaxation of procedural conditions is permissible in larger public interest where candidates are otherwise meritorious and not at fault.
3. Opposing the grant of relief, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the present Original Application is wholly misconceived, barred by settled principles of law, and amounts to an abuse of process, as the applicants are impermissibly seeking to re-agitate issues which stand conclusively decided against them by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in W.P.(C) No. 11934/2022 vide order dated 17.08.2022, wherein it was categorically held that the applicants, having admittedly not completed apprenticeship training nor appeared in the NCVT examination as on the cut- off date of 12.04.2019 prescribed under CEN RRC-01/2019, were ineligible for consideration, thereby finally settling the issue of eligibility. Pursuant thereto, the applicants' representations were duly considered and rejected by a reasoned order dated 28.02.2023, and a subsequent writ petition, W.P. No. 4332/2024, raising the same grievance, was withdrawn, rendering the present O.A. a clear case of forum SNEHASNEHA MEENA MEEN 2026.01.23 13:58:43 A +05'30' 7 Item No. 96 O.A. No. 132/2025 Court No. IV shopping and successive litigation for the same relief. The notification unambiguously linked eligibility under Para 12.2 to appearance in the NCVT examination before the cut-off date, a mandatory condition which the applicants admittedly failed to satisfy, and subsequent circulars or policy decisions, including the Office Order dated 25.01.2022, cannot retrospectively alter eligibility for a recruitment process governed by a 2019 notification with a sacrosanct cut-off date. 3.1. Learned counsel further submitted that it is well settled that fixation of eligibility criteria and cut-off dates lies within the exclusive domain of the employer and is not amenable to judicial interference in the absence of mala fides or arbitrariness, as held in Tajvir Singh Sodhi & Ors. v. State of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 344 (paras 65-69) and Ankita Thakur & Ors. v. H.P. Staff Selection Commission & Ors., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1472 (paras 42-46). Courts and Tribunals cannot grant relief in violation of mandatory recruitment conditions, as reiterated in Bedanga Talukdar v. Saifudaullah Khan, (2011) 12 SCC 85; State of Tamil Nadu v. G. Hemalathaa, 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1113; Dr. M. Vennila v. TNPSC, 2006 (3) CTC 449; and Dr. Anandamoy Ghosh v. Union of India, 2014 SCC OnLine Cal 21543, and adherence to the terms of the advertisement has been held to be the proper course of SNEHASNEHA MEENA MEEN 2026.01.23 13:58:43 A +05'30' 8 Item No. 96 O.A. No. 132/2025 Court No. IV administrative action in Ekta Shakti Foundation v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, AIR 2006 SC 2609.
3.2. Concluding the arguments, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that grant of the relief sought would not only disturb settled panels and the finalized recruitment process but also result in grave discrimination against thousands of other candidates who participated in accordance with the notified eligibility conditions; hence, the O.A. deserves dismissal.
4. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the pleadings available on record.
5. ANALYSIS :
5.1. In the present case, 12.04.2019 was the last date for registration, which was also prescribed as the cut-off date for determining eligibility under the impugned advertisement.
5.2. The entire premise of the applicants' case rests on paragraph 7 of the order dated 17.08.2022 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in W.P.(C) No. 11934/2022, wherein directions were issued for disposal of the applicants' representation; the said observations read as under:
"7. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that since no examination has been held for over three years and there would still be vacancies left after the vacancies are filled up pursuant to the subject advertisement, the petitioners have already given a representation to the respondents to consider the petitioners for the unfilled vacancies or to hold fresh examination for the unfilled vacancies for which the petitioners, if eligible, be permitted to be considered."
SNEHASNEHA MEENA MEEN 2026.01.23 13:58:43 A +05'30' 9 Item No. 96 O.A. No. 132/2025 Court No. IV 5.3. We observe that the nature of training imparted for grant of the training certificate and the completion of apprenticeship are distinct. In this context, the courts have consistently held that any deviation from the prescribed rules and permitting entry of ineligible persons would prejudice several other candidates who were otherwise eligible and could have competed for the post.
5.4. The term "Apprentice" is not defined anywhere in the IRSME, 1968 Rules, as amended to date 5.5. The definition of "Apprentice" is provided under the Apprentices Act, 1961 (Act No. 52 of 1961) [12th December, 1961], which was enacted to regulate and control the training of apprentices and for matters connected therewith. Some sections of the Apprentices Act, 1961 are quoted below:
Section 2 [(aa)] "apprentice" means a person who is undergoing apprenticeship training in pursuance of a contract of apprenticeship;
Section 2 (aaa) "apprenticeship training" means a course of training in any industry or establishment undergone in pursuance of a contract of apprenticeship and under prescribed terms and conditions which may be different for different categories of apprentices;
Section 13. Payment to apprentices.--(1) The employer shall pay to every apprentice during the period of apprenticeship training such stipend at a rate not less than the1 [prescribed minimum rate, or the rate which was being paid by the employer on 1st January, 1970 to the category of apprentices under which such apprentice falls, whichever is higher,] as may be specified in the contract of apprenticeship and the stipend so specified shall be paid at such intervals and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed.
SNEHASNEHA MEENA MEEN 2026.01.23 13:58:43 A +05'30' 10 Item No. 96 O.A. No. 132/2025 Court No. IV [(2) An apprentice shall not be paid by his employer on the basis of piece work nor shall he be required to take part in any output bonus or other incentive scheme.] Section 18. Apprentices are trainees and not workers.-- Save as otherwise provided in this Act,--
(a) every apprentice undergoing apprenticeship training in a designated trade in an establishment shall be a trainee and not a worker; and (b) the provisions of any law with respect to labour shall not apply to or in relation to such apprentice."
5.6. In the impugned speaking order dated 28.02.2023, paragraph 4 explicitly clarifies, inter alia, as follows:
"4. Further, date of notification and the dates of various eligibility are sacrosanct. Changing these cut-off date for one group of people will lead to similar demands from other interest groups, for example-
(i) Candidates who were under age at the time of notification may demand that they are now eligible and they have now attained the age indicated for a particular post during the course and as the examination has not yet been finalized, they may also be considered
(ii) In a similar way, candidates who did not have requisite qualification at the time of notification may demand that they may also be considered as they have the requisite qualification required for a particular post in the intervening period and as the examination has not been finalized yet, they may also be considered.
From the above examples. it is evident that, if, similar such representations/demands are considered, then the recruitment process will be severely compromised." 5.7. The mere existence of a vacancy does not, by itself, create a right in favor of an employee for retrospective promotion, particularly when vacancies in the promotional post are specifically prescribed under the rules, which also require clearance through a selection process (see Civil Appeal Nos. SNEHASNEHA MEENA MEEN 2026.01.23 13:58:43 A +05'30' 11 Item No. 96 O.A. No. 132/2025 Court No. IV 517-518 of 2017, Union of India & Anr. v. Manpreet Singh Poonam & Ors., decided on 08.03.2022). There is nothing on record to indicate that vacancies have remained unfilled or were not carried forward since 2019. Even a candidate included in the merit list does not possess an indefeasible right to appointment merely because a vacancy exists (Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India, (1991) 3 SCC 47). 5.8. Another important point to ponder is that the applicants, who have filed the Original Application before this Bench of the Tribunal at New Delhi, belong to various divisions of the Railways. Despite this, they have impleaded only the Secretary, Ministry of Railways as the sole respondent, without including any officers from their respective Railways. The procedural guidelines governing cases before Courts or Tribunals related to appointments and promotions in the Railways have been elaborated in Railway Board's letter No. 2014/LC/MISC/12 dated 28.07.2016. Matters such as whether the applicants were candidates from the concerned Railways or their respective Railway Recruitment Cells (RRCs), the particulars submitted in the application forms, the documents produced before the RRCs, and the reasons for rejection of their candidature can only be verified by the respective RRCs or Zonal Railways. Since these officers have not been impleaded as respondents, there is a clear misjoinder SNEHASNEHA MEENA MEEN 2026.01.23 13:58:43 A +05'30' 12 Item No. 96 O.A. No. 132/2025 Court No. IV and non-joinder of necessary parties, as highlighted in the aforementioned Railway Board letter. Consequently, the Original Application is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.
6. CONCLUSION :
6.1. In view of the foregoing discussions, we find no infirmity in the action of the respondents in deciding the representation of the applicants. Accordingly, the Original Application is dismissed as devoid of merit.
6.2. Pending M.A.(s), if any, are also dismissed. No costs.
(Dr. Anand S. Khati) (Manish Garg)
Member (A) Member (J)
/as/
SNEHASNEHA
MEENA
MEEN 2026.01.23
13:58:43
A +05'30'