Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Satyendra Kumar vs Central Railway on 24 February, 2026
(Open Court)
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ALLAHABAD BENCH
ALLAHABAD.
th
Allahabad this, the 24 day of February, 2026
Original Application No.247 of 2026
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial)
Hon'ble Mr. Anjani Nandan Sharan, Member (Administrative)
Satyendra Kumar, a/a 34 years, S/o Shri Ram Bahadur Rio Village-Beni
Ka Dera, Majre Dashari, Post Mahna, Police Station, Lalauli, District
PUNIT
KUMAR
MISHRA
Fathehpur, Uttar Pradesh 212661
....Applicant
By Advocate: Shri Niraj Kumar Dwivedi
VERSUS
1. Union of India through General Manager, South Central Railway,
Secunderabad, Andhra Pradesh
2. Divisional Railway Manager, South Central Railway, Vijaywada
Division, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh
3. Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, Divisional Railway Manager's
Office, Vijayawada Division, Personnel Branch, Vijayawada,
Andhra Pradesh
4. Assistant Personnel Officer (Mech), Divisional Railway Manager's
Office, Vijayawada Division, Personnel Branch, Vijayawada,
Andhra Pradesh
......Respondents
By Advocates: Shri Chakrapani Vatsyayan
ORDER
By Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial):-
Heard Shri Niraj Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Chakrapani Vatsyayan, learned counsel for the respondents at the admission stage.
2. Instant Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 has been filed for the following reliefs:-
8 (i) Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 02.04.2025 passed respondent-2 vide letter No.B/P.535/III/Mech (Rg) App.ALP/Msc.
(ii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus to directing the respondents to provide a chance for training of Assistant Loco Pilot in pursuance of letter dated 05.10.2006 being RBE No.145/2006 No.E(MPP) 2006/3/32 issued by Director (MPP) Railway Board.
Page 1 of 5 iii. to issue any other necessary order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
3. The case of the applicant is that he was selected for the post of Apprentice Assistant Loco Pilot (DSL/Electrical) vide engagement order dated 25.05.2012, subject to certain conditions, such as he was required to pass the prescribed medical examination and, upon successful completion of training, he would be appointed as Apprentice Assistant PUNIT KUMAR MISHRA Loco Pilot (DSL/Electrical) in the pay scale of Rs. 5200-20200 with Grade Pay of Rs. 1900/-. After completion of all formalities, the applicant joined the said post as a Trade Apprentice and was sent for initial training at the Zonal Railway Training Institute, Maula Ali, Hyderabad. The applicant attended the first training held for 21 days from 19.11.2012 to 15.12.2012 and the second training held from 20.12.2012 to 30.03.2013. During the training, he was orally informed that he had failed in the written examination.
3.1 The applicant submitted several representations, but no action was taken. Consequently, he earlier approached this Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 706/2019, which was dismissed vide order dated 19.03.2024, granting liberty to the applicant to challenge the order dated 20.06.2019 by filing an appropriate application before the competent authority along with an application for condonation of delay. Thereafter, the applicant submitted a detailed representation before the respondents, but no action was taken. Hence, he filed Original Application No. 7497/2024. During the pendency of the said Original Application, the representation of the applicant was decided vide order dated 02.04.2025, and accordingly, the aforesaid Original Application was dismissed as infructuous vide order dated 05.04.2025. The order dated 02.05.2025 is impugned in the present Original Application.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant assails the impugned order on the ground that in the first training held from 19.11.2012 to 15.12.2012, out of 35 candidates, 8 candidates, including the applicant, Page 2 of 5 were declared failed. The applicant appeared in the second training, wherein he allegedly secured marks above the cut-off but was still declared failed. As per letter dated 05.10.2006, apprentices/trainee were provided three chances to qualify the training/examination; however, the applicant was given only two chances to appear in the examination. Therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that PUNIT KUMAR MISHRA there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order, as the applicant was granted a second chance for the repeat course in terms of RBE No. 145/2006 but failed in the examination conducted at the end of the training at ETTC/BZA. There is no provision under the extant rules permitting a trainee belonging to the OBC category to be granted two repeat chances, i.e., a total of three attempts.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
7. It reflects from the record that earlier the applicant approached this Tribunal, by way of O.A. No.706/2019, which was dismissed vide order dated 19.03.2024 with a liberty to the applicant to challenge order dated 20.06.2019, by filing an appropriate application before the Authority concerned with an application for condonation of delay. Thereafter, the applicant preferred a detailed representation before the respondents on 09.05.2024, which was disposed of vide order dated 02.04.2025. The order dated 02.05.2025 is quoted as under for ready reference:-
Your representation under reference has been examined in the light of Rly Board instructions, and the relevant records pertaining to your case, and your representation is disposed as under. You have selected for the post of Pro.Asst. Loco Pilot through RRB/Secunderabad and after passing requisite medical examination, you were directed for G&SR training at ZRTI/MLY vide Batch No.5/12 from 19.11.2012 to 15.12.2012 and at ETTC/BZA vide Batch No.CA3/149 from 20.12.2012 to 30.03.2013, but you failed in the examinations conducted after training at ZRTI/MLY & ETTC/BZA.
In terms of Para (b) of RBE No. 145/2006, the trainees/Apprentices other than these covered under the Apprentices Act, 1961 belonging to OBC category may also be allowed one repeat chance Page 3 of 5 i.e. total of 2 chances and the 2nd chance will be without any stipend or any other remuneration. (copy enclosed) On request, you were allowed second chance for repeat course as per RBE No. 145/2006. You have attended for repeat course at ZRTI/MLY vide Batch No.1/13 from 07.02.2013 to 06.03.2013, but failed in the examination conducted at the end of the training at ZRTI/MLY. Thereafter, you did not approach administration for sending to training at ETTC/BZA for the best reason known to you. Having failed in training at ZRTI/MLY you have availed 02 chances. There is no provision to the Trainee belonging to OBC category be allowed two repeat chance i.e. a total of 3 chances as per extant rules.
You belong to OBC category and having availed one repeat chance PUNIT KUMAR MISHRA i.e. a total of 2 chances, and failed to pass the training course in 02 chances, your request for second repeat chance i.e. for a 3rd chance is not permissible as per rules. Hence, your request is not considered.
This disposes your representation dated. 09.05.2024 under references.
8. From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the Applicant was selected for the post Pro. Assistant Loco Pilot through Railway Recruitment Board Secunderabad and was deputed for mandatory G&SR training at ZRTI/MLY & ETTC/BZA. He underwent training at ZRTI/MLY (Batch No. 5/12) from 19.11.2012 to 15.12.2012 and at ETTC/BZA (Batch No. CA3/149) from 20.12.2012 to 30.03.2013 but failed in the examinations conducted at the end of the said training programs. As per Para (b) of RBE No. 145/2006 issued by the Ministry of Railways, OBC category trainees are entitled to only one repeat chance, making a total of two chances, and the second chance is without stipend. On the request of the applicant, he was granted the permissible one repeat chance and was deputed again to ZRTI/MLY (Batch No. 1/13) from 07.02.2013 to 06.03.2013. However, he failed once again in the examination conducted at the end of the repeat training. Therefore, the applicant exhausted the maximum permissible opportunities available under the extant rules.
There is no provision under the applicable Railway Board instructions for granting a second repeat chance (third attempt) to OBC category candidates.
9. In view of the above, the Applicant, having availed two chances and failed in both, has no legal or vested right to seek a third Page 4 of 5 opportunity contrary to the statutory rules. The Respondents have acted strictly in accordance with RBE No. 145/2006. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order.
10. Accordingly, the Original Application stands dismissed on admission stage.
11. Pending M.A., if any, will be treated as disposed of. . PUNIT KUMAR MISHRA (Mr. Anjani Nandan Sharan) (Justice Rajiv Joshi) Member (Administrative) Member (Judicial) PM/ Page 5 of 5