Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
Sainkumar P D vs Southern Railway on 17 February, 2026
1 CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH, ERNAKULAM Original Application No. 180/00253/2024 Original Application No. 180/00356/2024 Tuesday, this the 17th day of February, 2026 CORAM:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sunil Thomas, Member (J) Hon'ble Ms. V. Rama Mathew, Member (A)
1. Original Application No. 180/00253/2024 -
A.M. Abdul Sherief, Aged 56 years, S/o. A. Marakkar, Loco Pilot (Mail), Office of the Chief Crew Controller, Southern Railway, Ernakulam South Railway Station, 682016, residing at Amien House, Nochima, NAD (PO), Aluva, Ernakulam-683563. ..... Applicant (By Advocates : Mr. Varun C. Vijay and Ms. Divya Chandran) Versus
1. Union of India, represented by the Secretary to Government, Ministry of Railways, Rail Bhavan, New Delhi - 110001.
2. The General Manager, Southern Railway, Headquarters Office, Park Town PO, Chennai-660003.
3. The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, Southern Railway, Trivandrum Division, Trivandrum - 695584.
Sebastian Antony 2026.02.17 15:00:13+05'30' 2
4. The Assistant Personnel Officer, Divisional Office, Personnel Branch, Southern Railway, Trivandrum Division, Trivandrum - 695584.
5. P.K. Viswavaslsan, Loco Pilot (Mail), Office of the Chief Crew Controller, Southern Railway, Kollam Railway Station, 691001. ..... Respondents [By Advocates : Mr. V. Sajith Kumar (R2-4) and Mr. T.C. Govindawamy, Ms. Kala T. Gopi, Mr. Kailesh T. Gopi and Ms. Nishitha Balachandran (R5)]
2. Original Application No. 180/00356/2024 -
1. Sainkumar P.D., son of the late p.s. Damodaran, aged 52 years, Loco Pilot/Mail, Trivandrum Division, Southern Railway, ERS Depot, Office of the Chief Crew Controller, Ernakulam Junction, Ernakulam, Kerala - 682016, residing at Sain SAdanam, Jayasree Junction, Kanjiramattom, Ernakulam, Kerala - 682315.
2. G. Renjimon, son of the late V.K. Govindan, aged 57 years, Loco Pilot/Mail, Trivandrum Division, Southern Railway, ERS Depot, Office of the Chief Crew Controller, Ernakulam Junction, Ernakulam, Kerala - 682016, residing at Krishna Kripa, Agastya Nagar, Kureekaad PO, Ernakulam, Kerala - 682 305. ..... Applicants (By Advocate : Ms. Rekha Vasudevan) Versus
1. Union of India, represented by the Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Railways, Rail Bhavan, New Delhi - 110001.
Sebastian Antony 2026.02.17 15:00:13+05'30' 3
2. The General Manager, Southern Railway, Headquarters Office, Park Town, Chennai, Tamil Nadu-660003.
3. The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, Southern Railway, Trivandrum Division, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala - 695584.
4. The Assistant Personnel Officer, Personnel Branch, Divisional Office, Southern Railway, Trivandrum Division, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala- 695584.
5. P.K. Viswavalsalan, Loco Pilot/Mail, Southern Railway, Office of the Chief Crew Controller, Kollam Railway Station, Kollam, Kerala - 691001.
6. K.G. Ajithkumar, Son of A. Karunakaran, aged 57 years, Chief Loco Inspector, Office of the Chief Crew Controller, Southern Railway, Railway Station, Trivandrum Central, Thampanoor, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala - 695014. ..... Respondents [By Advocates : Mr. Sreejith N., ACGSC (R1-4), Mr. T.C. Govindawamy, Ms. Kala T. Gopi, Mr. Kailesh T. Gopi, Mr. Rahul R. and Ms. Mamatha S. Anilkumar (R5) and Mr. T.C. Govindawamy, Ms. Kala T. Gopi, Mr. Kailesh T. Gopi and Ms. Nishitha Balachandran (R6)] These Original Applications having been heard on 09.01.2026, the Tribunal on 17.2.2026 delivered the following:
Sebastian Antony 2026.02.17 15:00:13+05'30' 4 Common O R D E R Per: Justice Sunil Thomas, Judicial Member -
OA No. 180/00356/2024 -
The applicants herein challenge the inclusion of the 5th respondent a Scheduled Caste candidate, in the select list to the post of Chief Loco Inspector, against the UR vacancies.
2. Applicants Nos. 1 and 2 are Loco Pilots/Mail in the Trivandrum Division. They joined as Diesel Assistants on 6.4.1998 and 25.1.1989 respectively. After several promotions the 1st applicant was appointed as LP Mail on 20.1.2021 and the 2nd applicant on 31.9.2009.
3. While so, the 4th respondent, the Assistant Personnel Officer of the Southern Railway issued Annexure A1 notification dated 19.1.2023 notifying 12 vacancies of Chief Loco Inspector in Level-7 in Electrical Operations Department of Trivandrum Division. The eligibility criteria mentioned in the notification was Loco Pilot/Mail, Passenger and Goods who have completed either 5 lakhs kilometers actual foot plate duties or 10 years of actual service as Loco Pilot. The mode of selection prescribed was written examination to asses the professional eligibility of the Sebastian Antony 2026.02.17 15:00:13+05'30' 5 candidates and record of service. The panel was to be prepared on the basis of merit.
4. Annexure A1 notification provided for a pre-promotional course for training the employees belonging to the SC/ST category, covering the syllabus of examination to be conducted for selection. This was provided as the post of Chief Loco Inspector being a safety category post no relaxation of qualifying marks was extended to the reserved community employees. The 5th respondent who belonged to the Scheduled Caste community had availed the said benefit evidenced by Annexure A2 dated 5.1.2024. Annexure A2 is the list of Loco Pilots of the reserved community who have participated in the pre-promotional course, and the name of 5th respondent is at serial No. 15.
5. The applicants who satisfied the eligibility criteria mentioned in Annexure A1, submitted their candidature for selection to the post of Chief Loco Inspector. Written examination was conducted on 23.1.2024.
The 4th respondent published Annexure A3 dated 6.3.2024 the list of candidates who have secured requisite qualifying marks in the written examination. Applicants were included as serial Nos. 3 and 2 Sebastian Antony 2026.02.17 15:00:13+05'30' 6 respectively. 5th respondent is seen included at serial No. 10 in Annexure A3 dated 6.3.2024. Annexure A3 did not disclose the marks gained by the candidates included therein. On 4.4.2024, 4th respondent published Annexure A4 select panel of 11 candidates for appointment to the post of Chief Loco Inspector in Level-7. Annexure A4 shows that 5th respondent who had availed the benefit of pre-promotional course for the reserved community candidates was included against UR vacancy. This inclusion of the 5th respondent in the select list was challenged by the applicant in OA No. 253 of 2024 who was at serial No. 5 in Annexure A3. By Annexure A5 order in OA No. 253 of 2024 the Tribunal directed status quo to be maintained with respect to the appointment of the 5th respondent to the post of Chief Loco Inspector.
6. Though attempts were made by the applicants to secure information regarding marks gained by the candidates in the selection, under the Right to Information Act, it was futile. An RTI appeal challenging that order was filed and is stated to be still pending.
7. According to the applicants, the 5th respondent being a Scheduled Caste candidate and who had availed the benefit provided under Sebastian Antony 2026.02.17 15:00:13+05'30' 7 Annexure A1 notification for reserved community candidates cannot be included against the UR vacancy. The issue whether a reserved community candidate could be accommodated against the UR vacancy has been considered by this Tribunal in OA No. 411 of 2021 and batch of cases and OA No. 416 of 2022 of this Tribunal produced as Annexures A7 and A8 respectively. This being the settled law, a candidate belonging to the reserved community is not entitled to be considered against unreserved points. Inspite of Annexures A7 and A8 official respondents are still following the same pattern and thus included 5th respondent in the UR vacancy.
8. Assailing Annexure A4 on several grounds the applicants have approached this Tribunal, essentially seeking the following reliefs:
"a. Set aside the Annexure A4 select panel issued by the 4th respondent to the extent it includes the 5th respondent for consideration of appointment to the post of Chief Loco Inspector, against the UR vacancy.
b. Declare that the 5th respondent is not entitled to be included in the Annexure A4 select panel for consideration for appointment to the post of Chief Loco Inspector in Level 7.
c. Direct the respondents 3 and 4 to issue a fresh select panel for appointment to the post of Chief Loco Inspector pursuant to Annexure A1 notification by excluding the 5th respondent from the UR vacancy and by including the applicants herein in the said list. Sebastian Antony 2026.02.17 15:00:13+05'30' 8 d. To direct the respondents 3 and 4 to issue orders granting appointment to the applicants herein to the post of Chief Loco Inspector forthwith, within a shortest time frame."
9. Pending the proceedings, MA No. 164 of 2025 was filed by the applicants to bring on record another person who was included in the rank list as additional 6th respondent. MA was allowed. Additional 6th respondent who pursuant to notice, appeared and filed a reply statement. At the time of admission of the OA, though the applicants sought for an interim stay, in the light of the interim order of status quo granted by this Tribunal in OA No. 253 of 2024, further interim order was not warranted. Accordingly, it was directed that though no separate interim order was granted, the applicants will be free to bring up the matter at any later stage.
10. When OA No. 253 of 2024 came up for hearing on 24.4.2024 an interim order of status quo was granted with regard to the promotion of the 5th respondent therein. However, Review Application No. 10 of 2024 and MA No. 452 of 2024 in RA No. 10 of 2024 were filed by the 5th respondent in OA No. 253 of 2024 on a premise that status quo order was passed without giving notice to him, though he was in the party array. Sebastian Antony 2026.02.17 15:00:13+05'30' 9 Another Bench of this Tribunal in Annexure A10 order dated 1st August, 2024, both the RA and MA were allowed and the order passed on 24.4.2024 was reviewed and revoked. It seems that the 5th respondent was given appointment order thereafter. In the mean while the applicants herein filed MA No. 164 of 2025 to bring on record the additional 6th respondent in party array. It was on a premise that if the OA is allowed and the 5th respondent who had availed the benefit available to the SC category cannot be adjusted in the UR category then the 5th respondent having scored higher marks than the last candidate now will have to be ousted. Hence, he is a necessary party in the Original Application. He was impleaded and is now appearing through a counsel.
11. Pending the proceedings, a statement was filed by the official respondents on 12th September, 2024 disclosing the marks obtained by the candidates who are parties to the OA.
12. A reply statement was filed by the respondents Nos. 1 to 4 disputing the various claims set up in the Original Application. According to the respondents, the promotion which was under challenge in OA No. 411 of 2021 and connected cases was based on the method of 'suitability-cum- Sebastian Antony 2026.02.17 15:00:13+05'30' 10 seniority' which is extracted in page 6 of Annexure A7. Subsequently, this method of selection was changed into merit basis from 'suitability-cum- seniority' by RBE No. 80 of 2021 produced as Annexure R3(A)(2). The relevant paragraph was paragraph 2(b) of Annexure R3(A)(2). It was stated that the selection process followed in earlier selection based on which Annexure A7 order was rendered will not be applicable in the present case. Further, respondent No. 5 was included in Annexure A4 select panel for promotion to the post of CLI and placed in the unreserved vacancy based on his own merit without, giving any relaxed standards in selection process. The standard of examination was both the same for both the applicants as well as respondent No. 5. It was further stated that Annexure A8 order dated 12.4.2024 also pertains to selection on the basis of 'suitability-cum-seniority' for the post of Junior Engineer/Permanent Way against 20% promotional quota in the Engineering Department, whereas in the present case, the selection for the post of CLI was based on merit i.e. based on aggregate marks in professional ability and record of service. Hence, the preparation of the selection panel cannot be faulted. It was further stated that the applicants were Loco Pilot/Mail with the seniority position of 15 and 13 respectively and they belonged to Sebastian Antony 2026.02.17 15:00:13+05'30' 11 general category. The 5th respondent was working as Loco Pilot/Mail with the seniority position as 24 and he belongs to SC category. His service details show that he joined the service of the respondents as Diesel Assistants in Palakkad Division on 30.5.1990 and after several promotions, lastly promoted as Loco Pilot/Mail against SC vacancy with effect from 13.6.2015.
13. It was stated that the pre-selection/pre-promotional training to eligible SC/ST candidates was given and the 5th respondent was also directed for pre-promotional training and imparting of such training is not at all an aspect which gives any weightage to the participants as against the other employees who are writing the examination and considered for promotion. Participation in the pre-promotional training cannot be equated with the availing any benefit in the promotional post. Accordingly, it was contended that the OA was liable to be dismissed. OA No. 180/00253/2024 -
14. The applicant herein is a Loco Pilot/Mail under the respondents. He entered the service on 8.7.1991 and after few promotions, was appointed as Loco Pilot/Mail in the year 2021.
Sebastian Antony 2026.02.17 15:00:13+05'30' 12
15. Pursuant to Annexure A1 notification dated 19.10.2023 issued by the respondents proposing to conduct selection for filling up of vacancies of Chief Loco Inspector in Level-7 of Electrical Operations Department of Trivandrum Division, applicant applied under the UR vacancy. The proposal was to fill up 12 vacancies splitting into 10 vacancies of UR, ST-1 and SC-1. The applicant was included at serial No. 5 in Annexure A2, having secured requisite qualifying marks in the written examination.
16. Thereafter, 4th respondent issued Annexure A3 memorandum dated 4.4.2024 including the names of employees who have been selected and placed in the panel. It was seen that 1 vacancy reserved for UR category was sought to be filled up by the 5th respondent who was an SC candidate. According to the applicant Annexure A3, to the extent of proposing to include the name of the 5th respondent who belongs to SC category against UR category and excluding the name of the applicant was unjust, arbitrary and unsustainable. It was stated that it was in violation of principles laid down by this Tribunal in OA No. 411 of 2021 and connected cases, evidenced by Annexure A4. Though OP (CAT) Nos. 10 of 2024 and 16 of 2024 were filed, by the applicants in OA No. 411 of 2021 and the respondents in OA No. 455 of 2021, aggrieved by Annexure Sebastian Antony 2026.02.17 15:00:13+05'30' 13 A4 order, and not by the Railway Department, no stay was granted. The law laid down in Annexure A4 still holds the field. According to the applicant as per Annexure A4 no SC candidate can be promoted against UR vacancy.
17. The applicant has approached this Tribunal, challenging Annexure A3 to the extent of placing the 5th respondent in the UR vacancy and for a direction to place the applicant who is at serial No. 7 in Annexure A3 against UR vacancy and to promote him as the Chief Loco Inspector after removing the 5th respondent. The reliefs sought in the OA are as follows:
"i) To set aside Annexure A3 to the extent it places the 5th respondent as Sl. No. 7 against the UR category and excludes the name of the applicant from it, as unjust, arbitrary, illegal and unsustainable;
ii) To direct the 3rd and 4th respondents to pass orders removing the names of the 5th respondent from Annexure A3 and including the name of the applicant in it at the appropriate place;
iii) To direct the respondents 3 and 4 to pass orders promoting the applicant to the post of Chief Loco Inspector in the UR category based on his ranking in the panel list."
18. In the reply statement filed by official respondents, it was stated that, earlier the selection of Chief Loco Inspector was based on selection through suitability-cum-seniority as per Annexure R1, RBE No. 108 of 2019. This was the procedure followed in the selection process that led to Sebastian Antony 2026.02.17 15:00:13+05'30' 14 OA No. 411 of 2021 and connected cases. That selection was based on suitability-cum-seniority. Subsequently, this method of selection was changed to merit basis from suitability-cum-seniority as per Annexure R2 RBE No. 80 of 2021 dated 1.11.2021. Annexure R3 is RBE No. 113 of 2009 dated 19.6.2009, mentioned in paragraph 2(b) of Annexure R2. RBE No. 102 of 2023 dated 28.8.2023 was produced as Annexure R4. Accordingly, it was contended that panel was proposed to be made on the basis of merit only. The Chief Loco Inspector post being a safety category post, there is no relaxation in the qualifying marks for the reserved community employees. It was stated that respondent No. 5 was included in Annexure A3 select panel for promotion to the post of Chief Loco Inspector and placed in unreserved vacancy, based on his own merit without giving any relaxed standards in selection procedure.
19. The 5th respondent was more meritorious than the applicant and hence, he was placed in the panel. It was stated in RBE No. 80 of 2021 (Annexure R2) and RBE No. 113 of 2009 (Annexure R3) that selection procedure for promotion to general selection post may be followed in the case of CLI post as well. As per Annexure R5, Indian Railway Establishment Manual, Volume I Advanced Correction Slip No. 209, final Sebastian Antony 2026.02.17 15:00:13+05'30' 15 panel would be drawn up in the order of merit based on aggregate marks of professional ability and record of service. Annexure R6 Railway Board letter dated 8.4.1991 for pre-selection/pre-promotional training to eligible SC/ST candidates shall be imparted covering the syllabus of examination to be conducted for selections for a period of 3 to 4 weeks. The 5th respondent had undergone the said training. It was further stated that in the light of the merit position of the 5th respondent the applicant has no locus standi in seeking removal of the 5th respondent from Annexure A3 as there are more employees higher in merit than the applicant herein and among them 2 are UR and 1 is SC. Even if 5th respondent is removed from the panel the applicant cannot find a place in Annexure A3 as he is not immediately next in the order of merit and as such the OA is liable to be dismissed.
20. The 5th respondent also filed a separate reply statement traversing the allegations in the OA and in accordance with the reply statement filed by the Railway Department.
21. Heard both sides and examined the records. Since common issues of facts and law arise in both the cases, both the cases were heard together. Sebastian Antony 2026.02.17 15:00:13+05'30' 16 OA No. 356 of 2024 has been taken up as the leading case, since it being more comprehensive and specific grounds of attack are raised in the OA.
22. The short question that arises is whether a Scheduled Caste candidate who had undergone pre-examination training meant for SC/ST can be selected to a UR vacancy even on his own merit. It is an admitted fact that notification dated 19.10.2023 had notified 12 vacancies of which 10 vacancies were in UR, 1 vacancy each for SC and ST respectively in the post of Chief Loco Inspector in level-7 in Electrical Operations Department of Trivandrum Division. It is also not in dispute that the applicants in both the OAs belong to UR category and the 5th respondent who is common in both the cases belong to SC community and had availed the benefit of pre-promotional training evidenced by Annexure A2. Annexure A3 the list of candidates who have secured the requisite qualifying marks in the written examination shows that the applicants in OA No. 356 of 2024 are included as serial Nos. 3 and 2 respectively. The 5th respondent is at serial No. 10 in Annexure A3. The applicant in OA No. 253 of 2024 is at serial No. 5. All of them have qualified having secured the requisite qualifying marks in the written examination. Sebastian Antony 2026.02.17 15:00:13+05'30' 17
23. Annexure A4 in OA No. 356 of 2024 is the select panel list dated 4.4.2024. It shows that the 5th respondent is shown at serial No. 7 as against a UR vacancy. The 6th respondent is at serial No. 11 against an SC vacancy. It was stated in Annexure A4 that the panel is issued subject to the outcome of OP (CAT) No. 10 of 2024 arising from OA No. 411 of 2021 and OP (CAT) No. 16 of 2024 arising from OA No. 455 of 2021. In the pleadings filed by the respondents Nos. 1 to 4 the marks of persons involved in the litigation are disclosed. As per the marks obtained by each candidate the 5th respondent obtained 57.34 marks out of 80 and was placed at serial No. 7 just below serial No. 6 who had secured 57.51 marks. The 6th respondent is placed at serial No. 11 having secured 55.99 marks. The 1st applicant in OA No. 356 of 2024 had secured 56.01 marks and the 2nd applicant had obtained 55.16 marks. The applicant in OA No. OA No. 253 of 2024 secured 55.49 marks and was placed at serial No.
15.
24. Annexure A1 notification in so far as it relates to mode of selection clearly refers to RBE No. 108 of 2019 and RBE No. 80 of 2021 by which the selection was through written examination to assess the professional ability of the candidate and record of service and panel should be Sebastian Antony 2026.02.17 15:00:13+05'30' 18 prepared as per the merit. It was stated that volunteers have to obtain 60% marks in the professional ability and 60% in the record of service, in aggregate to be placed in the panel and panel will be formed as per merit. It was specifically provided that post of Chief Loco Inspector being safety category post there is no relaxation in qualifying marks for the reserved community employees. The specific contention of the official respondents is that the 5th respondent was not given any specific relaxation.
25. However, the specific case of the applicants in both the cases is that the respondent No. 5 had admittedly undergone the pre-promotional course. The notification also refers to pre-promotional course which provides that in terms of instructions contained in RBE dated 11.4.1991 pre-selection/pre-promotional training to eligible SC/ST candidates shall be imparted covering the syllabus of the examinations to be conducted for selections for a period of 3 to 4 weeks. In case any employee expresses his/her unwillingness for pre-promotional course, a written declaration to that effect may be forwarded to the Railway office. Sebastian Antony 2026.02.17 15:00:13+05'30' 19
26. Relying on it, the contention of the applicants was that the 5th respondent by virtue of a pre-promotional course on the exact syllabus which was extended to all SC/ST candidates, had an added advantage in the selection process, though the contention of the official respondents, was that the selection was absolutely on merit basis only.
27. The Railway Board RBE dated 11.4.1991 referred to in the pre- promotional course as above was produced by the applicant in OA No. 356 of 2024 as Annexure A15. It relates to the pre-selection/pre- promotion training in safety categories. It stated that a study undertaken about the effectiveness of the present practice of providing pre-selection coaching to eligible SC/ST employees has revealed that this training has not produced the desired results. Accordingly, it was resolved that such training should be made more effective with a view to ensure that the reserved posts are filled up by the reserved community candidates avoiding the need of de-reservation. After a review by the Ministry of Railways, it was observed that the training was not being organized properly and mostly left with some supervisors/officers. Hence, it was directed that the training must cover the syllabus of the examinations to be conducted for selection to the safety category posts and should be Sebastian Antony 2026.02.17 15:00:13+05'30' 20 imparted as far as possible in the Zonal Training School/System Technical Schools.
28. Reiterating it, Annexure A16 RBE No. 142 of 2019 was issued with specific instructions to improve the system of pre-selection training courses. Paragraphs 2(ii) specifically states that pre-selection training is not required, if there is no reserved vacancy and candidates are appearing in the selections/LDCEs against unreserved vacancies. Specifically referring to this, as well as the clause in Annexure A15 that training should be made more effective with a view to ensure that the reserved posts are filled by the reserved community candidates, it was contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that this clearly shows that pre- promotion/pre-selection training was specifically intended for an added advantage to the SC/ST candidates, who are contesting against the reserved vacancies alone. Clearly Annexure A16 also gives an indication that it was not meant to be granted when there is no reserved vacancy. Consequently, there is considerable force in the contention of the learned counsel for the applicants that granting of pre-selection/pre-promotion training in safety categories will have an added advantage to the SC/ST candidates and hence, with that advantage they cannot compete for Sebastian Antony 2026.02.17 15:00:13+05'30' 21 unreserved vacancy.
29. In furtherance of Annexures A15 and A16, the learned counsel for the applicants relied on Annexure A19 dated 4.4.2003 which is a circular issued by the Railway Board answering the various queries that was raised regarding reservation for Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes in posts filled by promotion. Regarding the question whether SC/ST employees who passes the relaxed standard is not to be placed on the panel against the unreserved vacancy though he is the senior most SC/ST employee, the clarification was that the relaxation is given to the SC/ST candidates only against reserved vacancies and not against unreserved vacancies. The next query related to when selection is conducted for post in which there is no reserved vacancy, whether SC/ST candidates should be called for interview in a separate block and whether in such a selection inclusion of an SC/ST officer in the selection committee is necessary. It was clarified that it was not necessary to call the SC/ST candidates for interview in a separate block when the reserved candidates are considered against the unreserved vacancies. However, the inclusion of a SC/ST member in the selection committee was necessary. Another crucial question was whether the pre-promotional training is necessary to be Sebastian Antony 2026.02.17 15:00:13+05'30' 22 imparted to SC/ST candidates when they are required to appear for selection as per general seniority in which there is no reserved vacancy, the clarification was that it was not required. Regarding the question whether pre-promotional training is required for SC/ST candidates when they have to appear in a selection against reserved vacancies, though the selection is to be conducted for the next higher grade or the same category in which the SC/ST employees are working where there is no difference in the working experience of the lower and the higher grades for shouldering higher responsibility, it was clarified in affirmative and that pre-promotional training is imparted to SC/ST candidates to qualify in the selection.
30. A cumulative reading of Annexures A15, A16 and A19 clearly shows that pre-promotional training is given to SC/ST candidates to enable them to compete against the SC/ST reserved vacancies and not to the general categories. Evidently, the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 4 and respondent No. 5 that since the 5th respondent has not enjoyed any relaxation in age or marks, mere participation in the pre-promotional training would not be a handicap for considering his candidature to the unreserved category, does not appear to Sebastian Antony 2026.02.17 15:00:13+05'30' 23 be correct. Definitely, it has an added advantage to the SC/ST candidate when they are competing against the general candidates.
31. Exactly the same issue as now raised by the applicants came up for consideration before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench in Shyam Bahadur & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. in OA No. 730 of 2022, the order of which was produced as Annexure A21. One of the limbs of the contentions raised against the selection of the SC/ST candidates against unreserved category was that the SC/ST candidates in that case were given special pre-examination training prior to the undergoing selection process while the applicants were not even allowed the said facilities of pre-examination training. It was contended that it was a specific instance of repeated discrimination against the general and OBC candidates with a purpose to reward the SC/ST candidates and they argued that as already affirmative action was done for SC/ST candidates through pre-examination training, thereby their candidature could not be on equal footing to others and should not be considered against the post of unreserved category which has been notified. Based on the pleadings one question formulated by the Bench was whether by giving pre- examination training and similar affirmative action, does the Department Sebastian Antony 2026.02.17 15:00:13+05'30' 24 make the SC/ST candidates a class apart who would not qualify for the general category post. Answering it, the Tribunal held as follows:
"30. As argued by the learned counsel for the applicants affirmative action of 3 weeks training for the SC/ST candidates before taking the multiple choice objective type test makes them a class apart as defined in the above circular which gave them edge over others in clearing the efficiency bar of 60% marks in the said test and also propped many of them with 80% and above marks qualifying them for accelerate climb up superseding others, should not qualify them to be considered as merit candidate for being adjusted against the general category seats appears to be convincing. Above circular gives only illustrative list of such conditions, and before considering such per-trained candidates for general category promotion seats, the respondent must clearly examine the issue as per the OM dated 01.07.1998 quoted supra. After examining the instant case with the OM dated 01.07.1998 we are inclined to answer this question in affirmative."
The OM dated 1.7.1998 referred to by the Bench was produced before us as Annexure A20.
32. Evidently, the Tribunal has considered the question from the correct perspective and we are in full agreement with the above view. The issue on a larger perspective was considered by this Tribunal in Annexure A7 order. The question that came up for consideration was whether SC/ST candidates could be considered as against unreserved vacancies. After a reference to the entire case laws on the issue it was held at paragraph 30 that in the light of the settled legal position, reserved candidates who had got accelerated promotion could not have been selected and appointed Sebastian Antony 2026.02.17 15:00:13+05'30' 25 against general category vacancies. To that extent the selection process was bad.
33. To salvage the above situation the learned ACGSC as well as the learned counsel for the 5th respondent contended that in Annexure A7 the promotion which was under challenge was as per a notification based on suitability-cum-seniority and RBE No. 108 of 2019 dated 3.7.2019. Subsequently, the method of selection was changed to merit basis from suitability-cum-seniority as per Annexure R3(A) RBE No. 80 of 2021 dated 1.11.2021. However, we are of the definite opinion that the law laid down by the Allahabad Bench with which we agree, answers the entire question. In the light of the pre-promotional training that was held, the 5th respondent along with other SC/ST candidates were all having an added advantage and were competing against the remaining contestants, with that added benefit of affirmative action.
34. The broader question involved therein as to whether a reserved candidate who has availed relaxation in fees/upper age limit to participate in the open competition with general candidates may be recruited against unreserved seats would depend on the facts of the case. It has been Sebastian Antony 2026.02.17 15:00:13+05'30' 26 consistently held that in the event that there is no embargo in the Recruitment Rules/employment notification such reserved candidates who have scored much higher than the last selected unreserved candidate shall be entitled to migrate and may be recruited against the unreserved seats. The scope and limit of migration was considered by the Supreme Court in Rajasthan High Court & Anr. v. Rajat Yadav & Ors. (2025 SCC Online SC 2931) and Antony S. Mariyappa v. G. Kiran & Ors. (SLP No. 4067 of 2022 and connected cases).
35. In this context, there is yet another fact to be taken into consideration. When the scheme of promotion and the career progression of each of the applicants is compared with that of the 5th respondents as well as that of the sole applicant in OA No. 253 of 2024 it shows that the 5th respondent had an accelerated promotion. The 1st applicant in OA No. 356 of 2024 joined the institution as Diesel Assistant on 6.4.1998 and after two promotions became LP/Mail on 20.1.2021. The 2nd applicant joined the institution on 25.1.1989 and after two promotions became the LP/Mail on 20.11.2009. The sole applicant in OA No. 253 of 2024 entered the service on 8.7.1991 and after promotions became a Loco Pilot/Mail in the year 2021. The 5th respondent was appointed as a Diesel Sebastian Antony 2026.02.17 15:00:13+05'30' 27 Assistant in Palakkad Division on 13.5.1990. He was promoted as Goods Driver on selection and thereafter promoted as Senior Goods Driver on selection on 21.3.2001. He was promoted as Passenger Driver on 21.12.2001. Ultimately, he was promoted as Loco Pilot/Mail against SC vacancy with effect 13.6.2015. He is ranked 24 in the seniority list. Evidently the 5th respondent had an accelerated promotion and got two promotions in 2001 itself. He was promoted as Loco Pilot/Mail against an SC vacancy.
36. Having evaluated the entire facts we are inclined to hold that the selection of the 5th respondent who had undergone the pre-promotional training to the unreserved vacancy is not in accordance with law and is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the respondents to recast the promotion list and to adjust the 5th respondent against an SC vacancy in accordance with the seniority list in merit. Consequential changes shall also be made in accordance with merit and the next meritorious person shall be accommodated in the UR vacancy. This process shall be completed as expeditiously as possible at any rate within a period of two months from today.
Sebastian Antony 2026.02.17 15:00:13+05'30' 28
37. Both the OAs are allowed in part, to the above extent. No order as to costs.
(V. RAMA MATHEW) (JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS)
ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
"SA"
Sebastian Antony 2026.02.17 15:00:13+05'30' 29 Original Application No. 180/00253/2024 APPLICANT'S ANNEXURES Annexure A1 - True copy of the notification bearing Sl. No. 152230/2021 dated 19.10.2023 issued by the 4th respondent.
Annexure A2 - True copy of the proceedings No. SR-
TVCOPB(P608)/9/2021(152230) dated 6.3.2024 th issued by the 4 respondent.
Annexure A3 - True copy of the memorandum No. SR-
TVCOPB(P608)/9/2021(152230) dated 4.4.2024 th issued by the 4 respondent.
Annexure A4 - True copy of the order dated 19.9.2023 in OA No. 411/2021 and connected cases passed by this Hon'ble Tribunal.
Annexure A5 - True copy of the order dated 12.4.2024 in OA No. 416/2022 passed by this Hon'ble Tribunal.
Annexure A6 - True copy of the RBE letter No. 88-E(SCT)I/42/2 dated 11.4.1991.
Annexure A7 - True copy of the order No. ZETTC/AVD/34R/2023
dated 5.1.2024 issued by the Chief
Instructor/ZETTC/AVD.
Annexure A8 - True copy of the English version of the question paper
of the examination held on 23.1.2024 for the post of Chief Loco Inspector in Electrical (OP) Department along with the instructions to the candidates. RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES Annexure R1 - True copy of RBE No. 108/2019 dated 3.7.2019. Sebastian Antony 2026.02.17 15:00:13+05'30' 30 Annexure R2 - True copy of RBE No. 80/2021 dated 1.11.2021. Annexure R3 - True copy of RBE No. 113/2009 dated 19.6.2009. Annexure R4- True copy of RBE No. 102/2023 dated 28.8.2023. Annexure R5- True copy of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual, Volume-I (1989 edition), Advance Correction Slip No. 209.
Annexure R6 - True copy of Railway Board's L. No. 88-E(SCT)I/42/2 dated 8.4.1991.
Annexure R7 - True copy of RBE No. 91/2018 dated 19.6.2018. Annexure R5(a) -True copy of the office order No. 27/2024/Elec(OP) dated 24.4.2024 issued by the respondents.
Annexure R5(b) -True copy of the Railway Board order bearing No. E(P&A)II-2009/RS-17 dated 3.7.2019.
Annexure R5(c) - True copy of the Railway Board order No. E(P&A)II-
2009/RS-17(Vol.II) (RBE No. 80/2021) dated 1.11.2021.
Annexure R5(d)-True copy of the Railway Board order No. E(P&A)II/2009/RS-17(Vol.II)(RBE NO. 102/2023 dated 28.8.2023.
Annexure R5(e) - True copy of the order bearing No. E(NG)I-
2008/PM7/4 SLP (RBE No. RB/Estt No. 113/2009) dated 19.6.2009.
Sebastian Antony 2026.02.17 15:00:13+05'30' 31 Original Application No. 180/00356/2024 APPLICANTS' ANNEXURES Annexure A1 - True copy of the notification No. 152230/2021 dated 19.10.2023 issued by the 4th respondent.
Annexure A2 - True copy of the order No. ZETTC/AVD/34R/2023 dated 5.1.2024 issued for the Principal ZETTC/AVD.
Annexure A3 - True copy of the order No. SR-
TVCOPB(P608)/9/2021(152230) dated 6.3.2024
th
issued by the 4 respondent.
Annexure A4 - True copy of the memorandum No. SR-
TVCOPB(P608)/9/2021(152230) dated 4.4.2024 th issued by the 4 respondent.
Annexure A5 - True copy of the interim order dated 24.4.2024 in OA No. 180/00253/2024 of this Honourable Tribunal.
Annexure A6 - True copy of the letter No. V/PCo-
Ord/SRTVD/R/E/24/00125 dated 20.5.2024 issued by the 3rd respondent.
Annexure A7 - True copy of the order dated 19.9.2023 in OA No. 180/411/2021 and batch cases of this Honourable Tribunal.
Annexure A8 - True copy of the order dated 12.4.2024 in OA No. 180/416/2022 of this Honourable Tribunal.
Annexure A9 - True copy of the interim order dated 3.7.2024 in OA NO. 180/356/2024 of this Honourable Tribunal. Annexure A10 - True copy of the order dated 1.8.2024 in RA No. 180/10/2024 in MA No. 180/370/2024 in OA No. 180/253/2024 of this Honourable Tribunal.
Sebastian Antony 2026.02.17 15:00:13+05'30' 32 Annexure A11 - True copy of the RBE No. 126/2010 dated 1.9.2010 issued by the Joint Director, Estt(Res), Railway Board. Annexure A12 - True copy of the RBE No. 117/2016 dated 30.9.2016 issued by the Joint Director, Estt(Res), Railway Board. Annexure A13 - True copy of the RBE No. 91/2018 dated 19.6.2018 issued by the Joint Director, Estt(Res.), Railway Board.
Annexure A14 - True copy of the judgment dated 18.1.2021 in OP (CAT) No. 102 of 2020 of the Honourable High Court. Annexure A15 - True copy of the RBE No. 71/1991 as downloaded from the website of Railwayrule.com.
Annexure A16 - True copy of the RBE No. 142/2019 issued by the Dy.
Director, Estt.(GP)III Railway Board dt. 28.8.2019. Annexure A17 - True copy of the RBE No. 80/2021 dated 1.11.2021 issued by the Joint Director, Estt(P&A) Railway Board.
Annexure A18 - True copy of the RBE No. 113/2009 dated 19.6.2009 issued by the Joint Director, Estt(N), Railway Board. Annexure A19 - True copy of the Railway Board letter NO. B3- E(SCT)42/1 dated 14.4.1983.
Annexure A20 - True copy of the DoPT OM No. 36011/1/98-Estt.(Res) dated 1.7.1998.
Annexure A21 - True copy of the order dated 24.5.2023 of the Allahabad Bench in OA No. 730 of 2022.
Annexure A22 - True copy of the order dated 28.7.2004 of the Jabalpur Bench in Bhagwan Singh and Another v. Ministry of Sebastian Antony 2026.02.17 15:00:13+05'30' 33 Railway and others 2005(3) SLJ 260 (CAT) downloaded from Indian kanoon.
RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES Annexure R3(A)-True copy of the RBE No. 80/2021 dated 1.11.2021. Annexure R3(B)- True copy of the RBE No. 113/2009 dated 19.6.2009. Annexure R5(a)- True copy of the order in RA No. 180/10/2024 in OA No. 180/253/2024 dated 1.8.2024 rendered by this Hon'ble Tribunal.
Annexure R5(b)- True copy of the order in MA 655/2024 in OA 356/2024 dated 5.8.2024 rendered by this Hon'ble Tribunal.
Annexure R5(c)- True copy of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court in OP (CAT) NO. 137/2024 dated 30.8.2024.
Annexure R5(d)- True copy of the order bearing No. E.Office No. 460027/2024 dated 4.10.2024 issued by the Senior Divisional Personnel Officer.
Annexure R5(e)- True copy of the order of this Hon'ble Tribunal in RA NO. 10/2024 in MA No. 180/373/2024 in OA No. 180/253/2024 dated 1.8.2024.
Annexure R5(f)- True copy of the judgment in OP (CAT) No. 137/2024 rendered by the Hon'ble High Court dated 30.8.2024. Annexure R5(g)- True copy of the office order bearing No. 27/2024/Elec(OP) dated 24.4.2024 issued by the third respondent.
Annexure R5(h)- True copy of Railway Board order bearing No. E(P&A)II-2009/RS-17 dated 3.7.2019.
Sebastian Antony 2026.02.17 15:00:13+05'30' 34 Annexure R5(i)- True copy of the Railway Board order No. E(P&A)II-
2009/RS-17(Vol.II) (RBE No. 80/2021) dated 1.11.2021.
Annexure R5(j)- True copy of the Railway Board order bearing No. E(P&A)II/2009/RS-17(Vol.II) (RBE No. 102/2023) dated 28.8.2023.
Annexure R5(k)- True copy of the Railway Board order bearing NO.
E(NG)I-2008/PM7/4 SLP (RBE No. 113/2009) dated 19.6.2009.
-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-
Sebastian Antony 2026.02.17 15:00:13+05'30'