Central Administrative Tribunal - Ahmedabad
Ms Falguni Devang Parmar vs Western Railway on 17 April, 2026
1 OA No.120/208/2025 & OA No.209/2025
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
AHMEDABAD BENCH,AHMEDABAD
Original Application No.208 of 2025 & OA No. 209/2025
Reserved on : 13.02.2026
Pronounced on : 17.04.2026
CORAM:
Hon'bleMr. Jayesh V Bhairavia, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Hukum Singh Meena, Member (A)
Ms. Falguni W/o Devang Parmar, aged about 39 years, Occupation: Service
Working as Technician-I (Fitter), Rajkot, residential address: A-46, Aalap
Green City, Raiya Road, Rajkot - 360001.
Applicant in OA No. 208/2025
Ms. Dharmistha D/o Gautambhai Paija, aged about 33 years, Occupation
Service, working as Technician-1 (Fitter), Rajkot, Residential Add:127-A,
Kothi Compound, Rajkot-360001.
Applicant in OA No. 209/2025
(By Advocate: Ms. K. L. Kalwani, in both the OAs)
Vs.
1. Union of India owning and representing, Western Railway through General
Manager, Church Gate, Mumbai.
2 Divisional Railway Manager,Western Railway, Kothi Compound, Rajkot
... Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. H.D.Shukla)
ORDER
Per: Hon'ble Shri Jayesh V Bhairavia, Member (J)
The issue involved in both the OAs i.e. OA No. 208/2025 and OA No. 209/2025 arises from a common set of facts and relief sought by the applicants therein are also common nature, therefore, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties and for the sake of convenience and clarity, the pleading of O.A. No.208/2025 (Ms.Falguni Devang Parmar Vs. UOI & Anr.) is referred to as the lead case for adjudication.
1.1 The applicants, by way of the present Original Application(s), assail the correctness, justness, legality, and validity of the show cause notice decision bearing No. ECW/1025/1/JE (Ranker) Vol. II dated 17.04.2025 (Annexure A-1), issued by the O/o Respondent No. 2 JITENDRA RAJ 2026.04.17 18:12:23 MEHTA +05'30' 2 OA No.120/208/2025 & OA No.209/2025 whereby it has been proposed to cancel the entire selection process conducted for promotion to the post of Junior Engineer (Mechanical - C & W), Level-6, against the 25% Ranker quota in respect to the panel whereof had earlier been notified vide letter dated 14.11.2024 and in this regard calls upon five empanelled candidates, including the applicants herein, to submit their representations, if any, within a stipulated time limit and also being aggrieved with an order dated 02.05.2025 (Annexure A/21 & 22) whereby the respondents rejected the representation of the applicants and had decided to cancel entire selection of Rajkot Division for the post of JE (Mechanical) Level - 6 against 25% Rankers Quota by scrapping the panel notified on 14.11.2024 for the said post, thus, the applicants have filed the present OA, under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal‟s Act, seeking following reliefs:
―a. The Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to admit and allow this OA.
b. The Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to restrain the respondents from cancelling the final panel of the candidates issued vide dated 14.11.2024 at Annexure A- 12 and dated 06.12.2024 at Annexure A-13.
c. Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to hold, declare and direct that the decision taken by the respondents and issuing the show cause notice ECW/1025/1/JE (Ranker) Vol. II dated 17.04.2025 proposing to cancel the entire selection process/panel (Annexure - A-1) is unjust, improper, illegal and arbitrary and may be quashed and set aside.
―8 CC. The Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to hold, declare and direct that both the impugned decisions of the Respondent Administration vide No. ECW/1025/1/JE(Ranker) VoI .II dated 02.05.2025 (Annexure-A-21 & A-22) are illegal, unjust & arbitrary and be quashed & set aside and be declared that the panel notified on 14.11.2024 for the post of JE(Mechanical)-Level-6 continues and be acted upon.‖ d. The Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to direct the respondents to not withhold the promotion orders of the applicants to the post of JE(C&W) for which they are qualified and the Respondents be directed release the promotion order of the Applicants to the post of J.E( C & W) for which she is placed in Panel, with all the consequential benefits from the date after she has completed her training period satisfactorily and is JITENDRA RAJ 2026.04.17 18:12:23 MEHTA +05'30' 3 OA No.120/208/2025 & OA No.209/2025 declared as passed or from any other date, as may be found appropriate by Hon'ble tribunal.
e. Any other appropriate order or orders as the Hon'ble Tribunal deem just and proper, be passed.
f. Cost of the OA may please be awarded‖.
2. Pursuant to notice issued by this Tribunal, the respondents have filed their reply opposing the claim of the applicants. The applicants have also filed their rejoinder.
3. Brief facts of the case, as borne out from the record, are that the applicants was initially selected and appointed to the erstwhile Group „D‟ post of Khalasi in the pay scale of Rs.5200-20200 with Grade Pay of Rs.1800, vide appointment letter dated 28.05.2008, and was posted in Rajkot Division. Thereafter, she earned promotion to the post of Fitter in the pay scale of Rs. 5200-20200 with Grade Pay of Rs. 1900 (Level-2) in September, 2018, and continued to be posted at Rajkot. Subsequently, she was further promoted as Fitter-II in October, 2020 (Level-4), and thereafter as Fitter Grade-I in December, 2022 (Level-
5).
3.1 Thereafter in the year 2024, the Headquarter Office of Western Railway vide notification dated 18.06.2024 proposed to hold a selection for promotion to the post of JE (C&W) Rs. 9300 - 34800/- GP-4200/- against 25% Rankers Quota (Mechanical Department) by way of CBT for different Divisions; wherein the Division wise vacancies are mentioned.
For Rajkot Division, six unreserved vacancies have been mentioned in the said notification dated 18.06.2024 and have also mentioned therein the detail scheduled programme for the selection process which includes the tentative dates etc. the syllabus for the CBT and the instructions for issuance of separate notification of the details of the selection process as mentioned hereinabove by the concerned division. Further, it has been directed to the concerned Division that JITENDRA RAJ 2026.04.17 18:12:23 MEHTA +05'30' 4 OA No.120/208/2025 & OA No.209/2025 they should also issue advise to all eligible candidates to start preparation for written test (CBT) (Annexure A/4 refer).
3.2 Pursuant to the aforesaid notification dated 18.06.2024 of the HQ, Western Railway, the Divisional Office of Rajkot, issued detailed notification dated 24.06.2024 for promotion to the post of JE (C& W) Rs. 9300-34800/- + GP-4200/-, Level-6 against 25% Rankers Quota (Mechanical Department) by centralized CBT for the assessed six (6) vacancies under UR category along with copy of notification dated 18.06.2024 wherein the syllabus for selection to the post in question has been mentioned. Thereafter, the office of DRM (E) Rajkot Western Railway issued Notification dated 02.07.2024 whereby copy of corrigendum issued by the HQ dated 23.07.2024 regarding revised syllabus for promotion to the post of JE (C&W) and also the eligibility list for JE (Ranker) C&W, Mechanical Department, Rajkot Division has been notified and directed to the effect that if any of the employee listed in the list of eligibility is unwilling, his unconditional unwillingness be forwarded to the office within ten days of the notification and further the employee shown in the list is transferred from their present Unit/Station, he should be advised of the selection through his concerned supervisor under advise to the DRM Office and his acknowledgement may be obtained and sent to the office without fail (Annex.A/7 refers).
3.3 The Divisional Office of the Rajkot Division further vide Notification dated 6.8.2024 issued a revised list of eligibility. Thereafter the HQ vide letter dated 20.09.2024 informed all the concerned Divisions that they should relieve the eligible employees to report to HQs office Churchgate Mumbai on 28.9.2024 to attend CBT and further conveyed that after the said date no candidate would be allowed to enter the exam centre and in this regard issued further instructions (Annex. A/10 refers).
3.4 The applicants herein, participated in the CBT held on 28.09.2024 held at the HQ and have participated in the selection process JITENDRA RAJ 2026.04.17 18:12:23 MEHTA +05'30' 5 OA No.120/208/2025 & OA No.209/2025 conducted for promotion to the post of Junior Engineer (C&W), i.e., Junior Engineer in the Mechanical Department, in the pay scale of Rs.9300-34800 with Grade Pay of Rs.4200 (Level-6), against the 25% Ranker Quota. The applicants were declared successful in the said selection process. Consequent upon the said written test / CBT held on 28.09.2024.
3.5 Pursuant to the CBT held on 28.09.2024 conducted by the Headquarter Office, the Divisional Office of Rajkot by referring HQ Office letter dated 17.10.2024 had issued a suitability list of 11 employees vide letter dated 22.10.2024 (Annexure A-11) who were found suitable to be considered for records verification for promotion to the post of J.E. (Mechanical). The name of the applicant of OA No. 208/2025 appears at Sr. No. 03 and name of applicant of OA No. 209/2025 has been placed at Sl. No. 2 in the said suitability list.
It is stated that in the said suitability list dated 22.10.2024 the names of Shri Mahesh U. Gadhvi and Shri Armugam M. placed at Sl. Nos. 07 and 11 respectively. Since there were only six vacancies to be filled up for promotion to the post of JE and the employee / candidate whose names have been placed at Sl. Nos. 7 and 11 under the apprehension that they will not be considered for the promotion and being aggrieved, the said both persons have filed O.A. No.13/2025 and O.A. No.14/2025 respectively before this Tribunal challenging the selection.
Further it is submitted that at the time of filing of this OA, i.e. on 25.04.2025 the said OAs i.e. OA No. 13 and 14 of 2025 were pending for adjudication and the respondents have also mentioned about the pendency of said OAs in the impugned show cause notice dated 17.04.2025 as also mentioned about the representations of the said candidates having been considered for issuance of the said show cause notice. Therefore, it is stated that though the name of applicants herein are higher in the said suitability list than the applicants of JITENDRA RAJ 2026.04.17 18:12:23 MEHTA +05'30' 6 OA No.120/208/2025 & OA No.209/2025 aforesaid pending OAs, but applicants have not been made party- respondents as effected persons in the said OAs.
3.6 Further, it is stated that in the meantime the Competent Authority accorded approval for formation of a panel of 6 (Six) suitable employees for promotion to the post of J.E. (Mechanical) in Level-6 against 25% Ranker quota vide communication dated 14.11.2024 (Annexure A-12), wherein the name of applicant of OA No. 208/2025 is placed at Sr. No. 4 in order of seniority and shown as "Outstanding" based on her performance in the selection process and with the said remarks the name of applicant of OA No. 209/2025 has been placed at Sl. No. 5 in the said panel dated 14.11.2024 for promotion to the post of JE (Mechanical) against 25% rankers quota in respect to the Rajkot Division of Western Railways.
3.7 Subsequently, the Divisional Office, Rajkot vide letter dated 06.12.2024 (Annexure A-13) placed 5 persons on the panel and directed them to undergo promotional training of 13 weeks.
Accordingly, the applicants undergone the said professional training along with other successful candidates named in the final panel for appointment to the promotional posts of JE (Mechanical) at Rajkot Division of 13 weeks (78 days) at Ajmer and certain different places. The final result of the said professional training was published/declared on 12.03.2025 wherein the applicants have been declared to be passed in the training. The Specialized Training Institute, North Western Railway, Ajmer vide its communication dated 13-03-2025 conveyed the result of the training to the Sr. DME (C&W)-JP/Rajkot (Annex.A/14).
3.8 It is stated that despite final selection and successful completion of training, as no promotion orders were issued, the applicants and other candidates submitted a joint representation dated 15.04.2025 to Respondent No. 2 (Annexure A-15). However, without considering the representation of the applicants, the impugned show cause notice dated 17.04.2025 (Annexure A-1) has been served upon whereby the JITENDRA RAJ 2026.04.17 18:12:23 MEHTA +05'30' 7 OA No.120/208/2025 & OA No.209/2025 applicants have been conveyed that the office of the respondent No. 2 i.e. DRM, Western Railway, Rajkot have received representations against the selection for promotion to the post of JE (C&W) and the panel notified on 14.11.2025 for the post of JE as also the two participants in the selection process has filed OA No. 13/2025, OA No. 13/2025 filed before CAT, Ahmedabad Bench alleging certain irregularities in the selection process. Accordingly, the matter has been investigated and had found following irregularities :
"1. As per instructions contained in RBE 17/2014, the selection of JE Mechanical is notified against 25% Ranker's quota by limiting the field of eligibility to 3 times of vancancies, accordingly, in terms of instructions contained in RBE 194/2019, there shall be no negative marks in the W.T. /CBT, however, in the notification dated 18.06.2024, reference of RBE 196/2018 was mentioned which has mislead the eligible employees regarding pattern of the W.T. / CBT conducted.
2. In terms of instructions contained in Para 142 of IREM Vol.I, senior most eligible Sr. Technician / Technician Gr. I of Fitter (C&W) and ancillary categories like Welder, CPTR, Crain Driver etc. of C&W are eligible as per integrated seniority without constraint of length of service or educational qualification, but in the instant selection, only employees of Fitter-Grade-I (C&W) category is considered by insisting length of service and Educational criteria, and by this way, ignored employees otherwise eligible to be called.
3. In view above irregularities, the panel notified vide this office letter dated 14.11.2024 becomes infructuous."
Further, in the impugned show cause notice it has been also stated that as per the approval of the competent authority it is proposed to cancel the entire selection for promotion to the post of JE (Mechanical) (C&W) Level-6 against 25% Rankers quota notified vide HQ letter dated 14.11.2024 and directed the applicants to submit their representation if any, against this proposed cancellation of selection / panel (Annex.A/1) which is impugned herein.
3.9 On receipt of the said show cause notice, the applicant vide her representation dated 21.4.2025 (Annex.A/2) requested the respondents to supply certain documents such as (i) copies of all the representations received by the administration its consideration, (ii) copies of OA Nos. 13 and 14 of 2025 filed in the CAT, Ahmedabad Bench, since the applicants have not been impleaded as party-respondent in the said OAs intentionally by the applicants therein and the copy of reply if JITENDRA RAJ 2026.04.17 18:12:23 MEHTA +05'30' 8 OA No.120/208/2025 & OA No.209/2025 any, filed by the Railway Administration in the said pending OAs.,
(iii) all the papers including reports etc. on the relevant file as to the investigation which is said to have been done before issuance of the show cause notice, (iv) copies of all papers of Western Railway, Rajkot, OES/PRMS/10/2021 OD/DPO/EST./RJT/WR and ECW/10251/1/JE (Ranker) Vol.-II and (v) copy of the decision of the authority who has taken such decision to cancel the selection.
Further, the applicant vide said representation informed the respondents that before the examination started on 28.09.2024 in the HQ Churchgate, Western Railway, Mumbai, the candidates were informed on Screen of Computer that there shall be No Negative Marks in the CBT Examinations being held (RBE No. 194/2019 dated 14.11.2019 Annex.A-17). Since there was CCTV arrangement in Examination Hall, the applicants requested the respondents to supply copy of such „Note‟ put on the screen, by verifying the same by the Administration. The applicant also requested to supply her copies of the relevant notifications and list of candidates of the Rajkot Division held in the year 2022 for promotion to the post of JE (C&W) against 25% Ranker Quota of the Mechanical Department to verify whether the Carpenters, Welders were called for such selection. The applicant therefore conveyed to the respondents that to enable them to give reply to the show cause notice.
In the meantime, reserving the right to file the final detailed reply after receipt of the documents the applicant had also filed her separate interim reply dated 21.04.2025 to the show cause notice (Annexure A-3).
3.10 Thereafter, in response to the representation of the applicant the Divisional Office of Rajkot vide their letter dated 1.5.2025 supplied
(i) copy of representation received from Shri Nawaj I. Shaikh, Shri Armungam M., Shri Mahesh U. Gadhvi and Shri Kishore Thoriya, (ii) copies of OA Nos. 13/2025 & 14/2025 and (iii) copies of the notification and list of eligibility of the 25% Rankers‟ quota selection JITENDRA RAJ 2026.04.17 18:12:23 MEHTA +05'30' 9 OA No.120/208/2025 & OA No.209/2025 conducted in the year 2022 whereas, other documents have not been supplied either on the ground of being confidential in nature or some of the documents are not available with the office such as CCTV footages (Annex.A/19).
3.11 The applicants also filed her detailed representation on 1.5.2025 in respect to the show-cause notice which has been duly acknowledged by the concerned Officer of the respondents. (Annexure A-20) wherein the applicants have explained that both the irregularities as mentioned in the show cause cannot be a ground to cancel the entire selection process. After completing the entire selection process as also the training the applicants herein has been declared successful and there is no irregularities has been alleged against the selection of the applicant herein under the circumstances the applicants requested the respondents to withdraw the show cause and not to cancel the entire selection process.
3.12 However, the representation of the applicant has not been considered, therefore, the applicant has filed the present O.A. 3.13 On filing the instant OA, this Tribunal having issued the notice to the Respondent(s), during the pendency of the OA, the Respondent Administration in response to representation dated 21.4.2025 of the applicant conveyed her vide letter dated 02.05.2025, that while notifying the eligibility list the eligibility criteria, age criteria and the educational qualifications provided in Para 142 of the IREM Vol.-I, have not been followed and therefore, the Competent Authority has decided to cancel entire selection of Rajkot Division by scrapping the panel notified on 14.11.2024 for the post of JE(Mechanical)-Level-6 (Annex.A/21) which is impugned herein.
3.14 By another letter of the same date i.e. 02.05.2025, the respondents conveyed that as per the interim direction issued by this Tribunal dated 28.04.2025 in OA No. 208/2025, the representation of the applicants have been examined and further stated that certain documents as demanded by the applicants have been provided to her. Further it is JITENDRA RAJ 2026.04.17 18:12:23 MEHTA +05'30' 10 OA No.120/208/2025 & OA No.209/2025 stated therein that since, the written examination / CBT was conducted by HQ office CCG, therefore, no remarks can be furnished by the Divisional Office. However, in terms of the RBE No. 194/2019, being departmental selection, there should be no negative marking in written test/CBT, but erroneously, reference of RBE No. 196/2018 is mentioned in notification. Further, it has been informed that since the eligibility list notified by the respondents without following the eligibility criteria, age criteria and the educational qualification as provided in Para 142 of IREM Vol.-I, therefore, the proposed action of cancellation fo the entire selection of the Rajkot Division by scrapping the panel notified on 14.11.2024 is proper and justified and accordingly, the representation of the applicant is disposed of (Annexure A22) which is impugned herein.
3.15 Since during the pendency of the OA the respondents have rejected the representation of the applicant vide order dated 02.05.2025, therefore, the applicant had filed an MA for amendment in the OA to challenge the legality and validity of the decision of the respondents dated 02.05.2025 accordingly, as per the order passed by this Tribunal the applicants have carried out the necessary amendments in the OA as well the prayer clause 8 (cc) as mentioned hereinabove.
4. In support of the prayer sought in the OA the learned counsel for the applicant by referring the aforesaid factual matrix mainly argued as under :
4.1 That the impugned show cause notice issued does not disclose as to who is the Competent Authority that has taken the decision to cancel the entire selection process and the panel. It is essential to specify the status and identity of the Authority, which has taken such a decision to issue the impugned show cause notice dated 17.04.2025; however, the same has not been disclosed by the respondents. It is further contended that the Authority issuing the show cause notice dated 17.04.2025 for proposing cancellation of the entire selection process and the final JITENDRA RAJ 2026.04.17 18:12:23 MEHTA +05'30' 11 OA No.120/208/2025 & OA No.209/2025 panel two reasons has been stated in Para 1 of the said show cause which reads as under:-
Firstly-
"In terms of the instructions contained in RBE 194/2019, there shall be no negative marking in the W.T./CBT. However, in the notification dated 18.06.2024, reference to RBE 196/2018 was mentioned, which has misled the eligible employees regarding the pattern of the W.T./CBT conducted." and Secondly -"In the instant selection, only employees of Fifth- Grade-I (C&W) category were considered by insisting on length of service and educational criteria, thereby ignoring other employees who were otherwise eligible to be called. In view of the above irregularities, the panel notified vide this office letter dated 14.11.2024 has become infructuous."
4.2 Learned counsel in this regard would argue that it is evident from the impugned show cause notice that the same is vague and non-specific, and appears to have been issued on the basis of representations and OA No.13/2025 and OA No. 14/2025 filed by unsuccessful candidates.
It is submitted that on perusal of averments in the OAs On 23.12.2024 by Shri Mahesh Gadhavi and Shri Armugam, respectively, both these candidates had appeared; participated in the examination (CBT), and had also qualified in the same, as per the result declared vide letter dated 22.10.2024 issued by the Rajkot Division. Their names appeared at Sr. Nos. 7 and 11, respectively. However, they could not be declared successful in the final selection due to failure in the record verification stage, which is an essential part of the selection process. Consequently, they did not find place in the final panel. The final panel was declared vide letter dated 14.11.2024. It is only thereafter that the said employees, namely, Shri Mahesh Gadhavi and Shri Armugam, appear to have submitted representations and/or filed the aforesaid OAs. Therefore, having participated in the selection process without any objection and having been subsequently found unsuccessful, such candidates are precluded from challenging the selection process at a JITENDRA RAJ 2026.04.17 18:12:23 MEHTA +05'30' 12 OA No.120/208/2025 & OA No.209/2025 later stage. The said proposition is squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar vs. State of Bihar, reported in AIR 2016 SC 5069.
4.3 Learned counsel in respect to the first ground/reason stated in the impugned show-cause notice i.e. mentioning of incorrect RBE No. 196/2018 instead of 194/2019 in the Notification dated 18.06.2024, would argue that the said ground appears to have been dropped by the Railway Administration as the explanation given by the applicants in the reply to the show-cause notice, is not negatived.
In this regard, further, it is submitted that even it is the case of the Applicants in OA No.13/2025 & 14/2025 filed by Shri Mahesh U. Gadhvi and Armugam respectively that they appears in the CBT test and before the said test started there was a message on the Screen of the Computer that there will not be any negative marking. Similarly, the applicants herein have also informed the respondents in their interim representation that before the starting of the test, it was informed to all the candidates in the examination hall on their individual computer that there will be no negative marking.
It is argued that the Railway Administration had corrected the error before the CBT begins and as such there is no prejudice caused to any candidate who participated in the said examination held on 28.09.2024 for promotional post of JE under 25% Ranker‟s quota.
4.4 Learned counsel would also argue that the two unsuccessful candidates had filed OA Nos. 13/2025 and 14/2025, have admitted that before the CBT starts the respondents had informed all the candidates that there will be no negative marking in the CBT. None of the candidates including the candidates Mahesh U. Gadhvi and Armugum raised any objections or protested against this, before or after examination or till December, 2024. The candidates were from Rajkot Division, Ratlam Division, Baroda Division and other places. It is worth to be noted that none of the candidates have raised any objections to this change in JITENDRA RAJ 2026.04.17 18:12:23 MEHTA +05'30' 13 OA No.120/208/2025 & OA No.209/2025 marking system except this two persons who raised objection for the first time when they did not find their names in the panel.
Therefore, by the settled law, there is a bar of estoppel and waiver against such two persons and are not entitled to raise the objection after they have appeared, and did not object for such a long period.
Thus, the Railway Administration has rightly dropped this ground of show-cause notice and has not given any remarks on this issue in their decisions.
4.5 It is submitted that for proposed cancellation of the entire selection process the reason assigned in sub para 2 of the show cause to the extant that as per the instructions contained in Para 142 of IREM Vol.- I senior most eligible Sr. Technician / Technician Grade I of Fitter (C&W) and Ancillary categories like Welder, CPTR, Crane Driver etc. of C&W are eligible as per integrated seniority without constrained of length of service or education qualification and in the instant selection, only employees or Fitter-Grade-I (C&W) category is considered by insisting length of service and educational criteria, and thereby ignored employees otherwise eligible to be called. Learned counsel for the applicant in this regard would argue that the relevant issue is how many employees from these categories are left out from consideration in the selection held.
Further in this regard, learned counsel submits that so far, category of Sr. Technician / Technician Grade I fitter (C&W) are concerned, undisputedly, the employees of the said categories were informed to apply for selection for the post of JE (C&W) against 25% quota if willing to appear. It is also not in dispute that 18 senior persons had applied from Sr. Technician Grade I Fitter Category. Thus, there is none from the Fitter Category, having any objection in the selections held.
JITENDRA RAJ 2026.04.17 18:12:23
MEHTA +05'30'
14 OA No.120/208/2025 & OA No.209/2025
So far other ancillary categories like Welder etc. are concerned learned counsel in this regard would argue that the following details shall clearly establish the fact that none of such categories of employees have any grievances or any prejudice caused to them in respect to the selection held for the post of JE (C&W) Rajkot Division. Learned counsel in this regard relied upon the following details in respect to Rajkot Division :-
Welders 04 1. Kishore H. Thoriya
2. Jahid H.
3. Brijeshsinh
4. Pruthvirajsinh Jadeja There are only 4 persons in Cadre of Welders in Rajkot Division. Out of above, Shri Kishore H. Thoriya, is due to retire in next year on attaining the age of superannuation.
Prior to this selection also, he never applied or appeared for the post of JE (C & W) as was not interested in the post of JE. The said Shri Kishore H. Thoriya, is presently working on post as Sr. Technician carrying the Pay scale of 9300- 34800+4200 GP. Which is equivalent to the pay scale of JE, therefore, he did not raise any grievance till the declaration of panel in December, 2024 and have submitted a representation at the behest of the two unsuccessful candidates who filed OA No. 13/2025 and 14/2025. So far other 3 Welders are concerned, they would not be eligible to be called as per their seniority position amongst the persons to be called for selection.
Therefore, the reason assigned is that such categories of employees at the Rajkot Division have been ignored in the selection process is far from the truth.
4.6 It is also stated that so far Carpenters are concerned, there is no carpenter working in Rajkot Division in the C&W department. Therefore, there is no question of any Carpenter having been left out. So far Crane Drivers are concerned, there are two Crane Drivers in JITENDRA RAJ 2026.04.17 18:12:23 MEHTA +05'30' 15 OA No.120/208/2025 & OA No.209/2025 Rajkot Division in C&W Department namely (1) Shri Gunvantrai Joshi & (2) Shri Digvijaysingh R. Their names were included in the eligibility list for JE (Ranker Quota) as per the Notification dated 02.07.2024 issued by the Divisional Office at Rajkot. Out of the said two Crane Drivers as above, Shri Gunvantrai Joshi participated/appeared in the CBT (Test) held on 28.09.2024 but he failed in the said test. So far Shri Digvijay Singh R., is concerned though his name was included in the eligibility list -B and at Sr. No. 2, he has chosen not to appear in the CBT and as such he had given his unwillingness for the same.
4.7 Therefore, learned counsel for the applicant vehemently argued that no one is left out from the Cadre of Crane Drivers. Except the above categories, there are no other categories in ancillary categories.
Thus, it becomes clear that except category of Welders, wherein total 4 employees are working, no other person from ancillary category is left out or has any grievance. At the cost of repetition, it is submitted that out of four welders, the first person namely Kishore H. Thoriya is already working on post carrying the same pay scale as of the promotional post of JE and other three persons would not be eligible on the basis of their seniority.
4.8 Learned counsel would argue that in any case, if the Railway Administration is of the opinion that any of the Welders are left out and they are willing to appear in the test of JE, the Railway Administration is free and is permissible under the rules to hold the supplementary test and if any of them are successful, their names can be interpolated in the panel. Thus, for this short-coming on the part of the Respondent Railway, it shall be causing injustice to those five persons who are selected on their own strength and merits by their hardworking.
4.9 It is submitted that the Hon‟ble Supreme Court has taken such view consistently in number of cases and has held repeatedly it shall be unjustified to cancel the entire examination for some short-comings JITENDRA RAJ 2026.04.17 18:12:23 MEHTA +05'30' 16 OA No.120/208/2025 & OA No.209/2025 which are of remediable nature and could be corrected. Thus, the impugned decisions dated 02.05.2025 under challenge herein are illegal, invalid and arbitrary and are required to be quashed and set aside.
4.10 It is also stated that on perusal of the letter dated 22.12.2024 (Annexure A-23), it is apparent that there are four persons who have secured 80% marks or more. Out of them, Mahesh D (SC) at Sr. No. 5 has failed in medical test. The persons who filed OA No. 13/2025 and 14/2025 are at Sr. No. 7 & 11 and they have secured 72.50% and 67% marks respectively. Thus, irrespective of the persons who have been classified as "outstanding", they are otherwise having secured much more marks than anyone else on the panel and, therefore, their selection is not questionable on any ground whatsoever. In such circumstances, the applicants have filed the instant OA seeking the reliefs as quoted above.
4.11 It is further submitted that the notification dated 18.06.2024 was issued by the Headquarters Office in June 2024. The final list of eligible candidates was published on 11.09.2024. The CBT examination was conducted on 28.09.2024, and the result thereof was declared on 22.10.2024. The final panel was thereafter published on 14.11.2024. The representations by the above named two unsuccessful candidates appear to have been made only after the publication of the final panel, upon finding themselves excluded there-from. Thus, such representations are clearly an afterthought.
4.12 It is further submitted that it is evidently clear that representations from employees who did not find place in the panel were received only after notification of the panel. This clearly establishes that the objections raised are nothing but an afterthought, triggered solely by their non-selection for the post of JE (C&W)-Mechanical.
4.13 Learned counsel argued that it is also pertinent to note that employees who now claim to be eligible, if any, and who did not participate in the selection process, neither raised any objection nor submitted any JITENDRA RAJ 2026.04.17 18:12:23 MEHTA +05'30' 17 OA No.120/208/2025 & OA No.209/2025 representation nor expressed willingness to appear in the selection. Therefore, at this belated stage, no such issue can be entertained, particularly when no grievance was raised by any such allegedly affected persons at the relevant time.
4.14 Learned counsel also argued that the impugned show cause notice suffers from serious infirmities, including non-application of mind and lack of proper inquiry, and appears to have been issued in undue haste and possibly under extraneous pressure, without conducting any proper investigation. Firstly, the contention raised by the two unsuccessful candidates, namely Shri Mahesh Gadhavi and Shri Armugam, is based solely on the notification dated 18.06.2024 issued by the Headquarters Office, Churchgate, wherein reference was made to Railway Board letter No. E(NG)I/2018/PM/4 dated 14.12.2018 (RBE No. 196/2018). The said RBE No. 196/2018 pertains to a negative marking pattern. According to the show cause notice, this reference was erroneous and ought to have been RBE No. 194/2019 dated 14.11.2019, which provides that there shall be no negative marking in the selection.
In this regard, it is submitted that prior to the commencement of the examination on 28.09.2024 at the Headquarters Office, Churchgate, Mumbai, all candidates were clearly informed, through their respective computer screens in the examination hall, that there would be no negative marking in the CBT examination. This fact is verifiable from the CCTV footage of the examination hall as well as from the officers who were present and responsible for conducting the examination and secondly, the General Manager (E), Western Railway, Mumbai, vide letter dated 27.09.2024, addressed to DRM (E) BCT, BRC, RTM, and RJT, directed that candidates be informed that the answer key along with the question paper would be uploaded on the e-Pariksha portal shortly after the examination, and that any representations regarding the question paper or answer key should be submitted by 02.10.2024. The said letter was also displayed on the notice board in the examination hall on 28.09.2024, and candidates were directed to take note of the same. Despite this, no candidate JITENDRA RAJ 2026.04.17 18:12:23 MEHTA +05'30' 18 OA No.120/208/2025 & OA No.209/2025 submitted any representation or complaint within the stipulated time. Therefore, the allegation that candidates were misled is wholly unfounded and Thirdly, the mere mention of an incorrect RBE number in the notification dated 18.06.2024 does not establish that the evaluation of answer sheets was carried out by adopting an incorrect pattern. In the absence of any inquiry or report from the examiners regarding the actual evaluation process, no such conclusion can be drawn. Any such inference is based purely on assumptions and conjectures; therefore, the impugned order is bad in law. Fourthly, the two unsuccessful candidates raised the grievances only after the declaration of the results and publication of the final panel. Notably, no other candidate has raised any objection or grievance regarding the fairness or correctness of the selection process. Therefore, such belated objection raised by unsuccessful candidates cannot be made sole ground to cancel the entire selection process.
4.15 It is submitted that initially the panel was prepared for six vacancies, which was subsequently reduced to five due to failure of one candidate in the medical examination, thereby leaving one vacancy. Such vacancy can be filled through a supplementary process, if required.
Thus, cancellation of the entire selection process is wholly arbitrary, disproportionate, and unwarranted, particularly when no fault is attributable to the selected candidates.
4.16 Learned counsel also submitted that it is well settled that mere irregularities, unless they go to the root of the selection process and vitiate it in its entirety, cannot justify cancellation of the entire selection. In this regard, reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court passed in Union of India vs. Rajesh P.U. Puthuvalnikikathu reported in (2003) 7 SCC 285, wherein it was held that unless there are widespread and pervasive irregularities affecting the entire process, cancellation of the whole selection is unjustified and arbitrary.
JITENDRA RAJ 2026.04.17 18:12:23
MEHTA +05'30'
19 OA No.120/208/2025 & OA No.209/2025
Further, in Tejvir Singh Sodhi vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir reported in AIR 2023 SC 2014, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court held that minor irregularities or defects which do not affect the core of the selection process cannot be a ground to set aside the entire selection, and that appropriate corrective measures should be adopted instead. Similarly, in State of Assam vs. Arbinda Rabha reported in AIR 2025 SC 1318, it has been held that any decision to cancel a selection process must be based on bona fide reasons and must not be arbitrary, particularly when it adversely affects candidates who have legitimately succeeded in the process.
Therefore, learned counsel for the applicant vehemently argued that in view of the above facts and settled legal position, the impugned show cause notice and the decision to cancel the entire selection process including the panel of successful candidates is legally unsustainable, arbitrary, and liable to be set aside.
5. Per contra, on receipt of notice issued by this Tribunal, the respondents have filed the reply and denied the claim of the applicant. Ms. H.D.Shukla, learned counsel for the respondents by referring to the contents of the reply mainly submitted as under :-
5.1 Learned counsel submitted that at the time of disposing the representation of applicants, clause No. iii & iv were not supplied due to confidential reasons, as the selection for the post of JE-Mechanical Level 6 against 25% ranker quota was not completed and the matter was subjudiced before this Tribunal. Moreover, there was an instruction from Vigilance Department regarding this selection, which was confidential in nature, hence, the same was not given. Moreover, one empanelled employee Shri Mahesh D could not pass mandatory Medical fitness test prior to promotion as JE(C&W) as such his name was not incorporated for the training course.
5.2 Learned counsel further submitted that it is far from the fact that the decision of cancelling the panel was taken in a hurried manner. A reasonable opportunity to give representation was given to the JITENDRA RAJ 2026.04.17 18:12:23 MEHTA +05'30' 20 OA No.120/208/2025 & OA No.209/2025 applicants. It is also far from the truth that the decision of cancelling the panel was pre-determined and without application of mind but it was done by applying the rules/policies on the subject matter for giving justice to all the employees who were eligible in the said selection.
5.3 Learned counsel also submitted that the representation of the applicants dated 21.04.2025 was decided by the respondents on 02.05.2025 and the competent authority has decided to cancel the selection panel of the said selection. In show case notice, it is clearly mentioned that in the notification dated 18.06.2024, it was mentioned that the CBT test will be taken as per RBE No.196/2018. Moreover, as there was contradiction in the criteria of negative marking in the test taken at HQ office, which was one of the irregularity for cancellation of the selection, which has been noticed during the course of investigation.
Further, during the investigation, irregularity was found in respect to the eligibility criteria in respect to the selection of promotional post of JE (Mechanical), Ranker Quota, Rajkot Division. By referring the Statement showing the irregularity in the selection as well as representation received annexed as Annexure-R1, it is submitted that Welder category has not been considered as eligible and in this regard had received the representation, therefore, for such irregularity the selection process held at the Rajkot Division rightly cancelled by the respondents.
5.4 It is submitted that as per the provisions contained in Para 142 of the IREM Vol.-I (Annexure R/2) there is no age criteria limitation for calling the eligible employees to participate in the selection process, however, no such provision has been mentioned in the notification and the said fact has been found during the investigation made as per the representation and the allegation of the applicants of OA Nos. 13 & 14 of 2025 filed before this Tribunal. Therefore, the Railway Administration has rightly cancelled the selections JITENDRA RAJ 2026.04.17 18:12:23 MEHTA +05'30' 21 OA No.120/208/2025 & OA No.209/2025 5.5 It is further submitted that show cause notices were issued after irregularities were found in the selection process in the investigation was made and it is not correct to state by the applicant that it was done merely on the basis of OA Nos.13/2025 and 14/2025. It is reiterated that the office of the Rajkot Division has received representation from some eligible candidates who were not included in the eligibility list for the promotional post of JE (Mechanical). Further, it is submitted that as per Railway rule, if representations received after issue of panel and irregularities are found, the competent authority can cancel the selection as per Master Circular 31 Para-13(1) (Annexure-R3refer).
5.6 It is submitted that the decision for cancellation of the entire selection process and the panel thereon was taken after proper investigation and by applying the rules/policies on the subject matter for giving justice to all the employees who were eligible in the said selection.
5.7 Lastly, learned counsel submitted that as such, no right of the applicant has been accrued for appointment to the promotional post and there is no violation of the principles of natural justice as well as any instructions or rule position for cancellation of entire selection process. The reliefs sought by the applicants are not sustainable in law. The OA is, therefore, not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed in the interest of justice.
6. In rebuttal to the contentions of the respondents, learned counsel for the applicants by referring to the rejoinder besides reiterating the contents of the OA has submitted that the explanation offered by the respondents for not supplying the documents, particularly, Clauses III and IV, on the ground of confidentiality is unreasonable and arbitrary, and violates the principles of transparency. No selection process or panel can be cancelled without valid and cogent reasons, and there is no scope for invoking "confidentiality" in a matter involving cancellation of an entire selection process and the panel of selected candidates. The reasons for such a drastic action of cancelling the entire panel must not be extraneous, non-germane, irrelevant, or mala JITENDRA RAJ 2026.04.17 18:12:23 MEHTA +05'30' 22 OA No.120/208/2025 & OA No.209/2025 fide. The action of the respondents, in the present case, gives rise to a reasonable inference that there are no valid or sustainable grounds for cancelling the selection process and the panel.
6.1 Learned counsel also submitted that it is not true that the selection to the post of JE-Mechanical, Level-6 against 25% ranker quota was not completed. Rather, the selection had already been completed. Not only this, the successful candidates were deputed for the requisite training at Ajmer for 13 weeks, which they have also successfully completed, as reflected in the result dated 01.03.2025 (Annexure A-14). They had also passed the medical examination and were awaiting issuance of formal orders of posting/promotion. The reason that the matter was sub-judiced is not only incorrect but also irrelevant. Similarly, the reason assigned that there were instructions from the Vigilance Department regarding this selection, which were confidential in nature, is also wholly irrelevant. The applicants fails to understand how the Vigilance Department came into the picture and how it could interfere in the selection process, unless there were allegations of corruption, mass copying, or similar irregularities, which is not the case here. Thus, it clearly appears that the selection has been cancelled at the behest of certain interested persons by misusing the name of the vigilance machinery. The manner in which the selection has been cancelled suggests that the decision has been taken under extraneous pressure.
6.2 Learned counsel also submitted that regarding the issue in the notification dated 18.06.2024, wherein it was mentioned that the CBT test would be conducted as per RBE No.196/2018, the said aspect has already been sufficiently explained by the applicants in her representation to the impugned show cause notice, as well as in the instant OA. The respondents have, in fact, dropped this ground in its final order while rejecting the representation of the applicants and the decision for cancelling the panel ultimately rested solely on the ground that certain eligible persons were left out of the eligibility list. However, no material has been produced by the respondents to JITENDRA RAJ 2026.04.17 18:12:23 MEHTA +05'30' 23 OA No.120/208/2025 & OA No.209/2025 substantiate or establish this ground. Having regard to Annexure R1, learned counsel mentioned certain facts, which are as under :-
(i) Application by Shri Kishore Thoria is dated 05.03.2025.
(ii) Applications dated 16.05.2025 by two persons viz. Shri Ravindra Kumar B. Fitter - I C&W Okha and Shri Arun Kumar G., MCF C & W. The respondents have suppressed the material facts and have deliberately not disclosed that Sh. Arunkumar G. MCF C & W and Sh.
Ravindra Kumar G. both have submitted their application dated 16.05.2025 were Fitter Gr. I and their names appeared in standby Eligibility list "B" dated 06.08.2024 at Sr. No. 7 & 8 respectively. Thereafter, the revised and final eligibility list was issued vide letter dated 19.09.2024. The persons above to Sh. Arunkumar G. MCF C & W and Sh. Ravindra Kumar could not reach in the eligibility list "A" on account of refusal given by the persons in list "A". However, Sh. Arunkumar G. MCF C & W and Sh. Ravindra Kumar could not stand in turn to reach in list "A".
Thereafter, said Sh. Arunkumar G. MCF C & W is promoted as MCF i.e. "Master Craft-Man", which carries same pay scale as of JE (C&W) i.e. the post in question in about Dec. 2024 and he is working as MCF at OKHA at present.
In view of aforesaid facts, applications of aforesaid two persons, if any cannot be termed as genuine or have any bona-fide intention therein. However, such applications are used by Railway Administration arbitrarily and erroneously for the impugned decision of cancelling the panel. This clearly proves that the panel is cancelled not for any legal or valid reasons and therefore, the impugned decision is not tenable in the eye of law.
JITENDRA RAJ 2026.04.17 18:12:23
MEHTA +05'30'
24 OA No.120/208/2025 & OA No.209/2025
6.3 Learned counsel further submitting that considering the dates of the representations of the said employees, it can be reasonably be inferred that the same are neither genuine nor bona fide and appear to be manipulated. If the representations were genuine and bona fide, and such three employees had valid cause of action, they would not have waited for such long period till March or May 2025, i.e. when the selection process started vide notification dated 18.06.2024 and till final panel was issued vide result dated 14.11.2024. Thus, such belated representations are not entertainable to disturb the rights created in favour of successful candidates. Moreover, such belated representations are not examined by Railway Administration as to their eligibility or otherwise and even if they are left over and they are eligible as per Railway administrations, such error could be corrected by arranging supplementary selection. But to cancel the entire selection for such persons who had not come forward immediately is injustice done to those who were otherwise eligible and have passed successfully.
6.4 Learned counsel also submitted that the respondents have produced Master Circular reg. Promotion of staff to selection posts vide R/3 (Page-151), Relevant Para from the some is reproduced below: -
―Amendment to and representation against Panel
(i) A Panel once approved should not be normally cancelled. If after the formation and announcement of the panel, procedural irregularities or other defects are found and it is considered necessary to cancel or amend such a panel, this should be done after obtaining the approval of the authority next higher than the one who approved the panel.
(ii) Representations, if any, against a panel should be submitted to the competent authority within a period of two months from the date of announcement of the panel. However, the authority that approved the panel or higher authority may use his discretion and take such action as is considered necessary if he is satisfied that an irregularity has occurred and on that account some staff have been put to hardship. [E(NG) I/68/PM1/60 dated 29.8.1968 and E(NG) I/67/PM1/41 dated 5.2.1969] Where a selection panel has been approved by ADRM in the division a proposal for modification of panel may be approved by DRM as the authority next higher than the one that approved the panel.
(iii) Where a selection panel has been approved by DRM in the Division/HOD in the Zonal Headquarter, a proposal for modification of panel may be approved by CHOD/PHOD as the authority next higher than the one that JITENDRA RAJ 2026.04.17 18:12:23 MEHTA +05'30' 25 OA No.120/208/2025 & OA No.209/2025 approved the panel. (Authority: Rly. Board's letter No. E(NG) I/2018/PM1/62 dated 27.11.2018)
(iv) Whenever selection proceedings are required to be cancelled after declaration of result due to procedural irregularities / malpractices, due notice should be given to the candidates declared selected. (Rly. Boards Letter No. E(NG) I/2019/PM/13 (dated 11.11.2019))"
By referring the aforesaid binding instructions, learned counsel would argue that in the present case the representations/grievances of the said three persons were not entertainable by the respondents since same were submitted beyond the time limit stipulated in the aforesaid Master Circular. Further, as noted hereinabove, the applicant of the said representation had been already promoted and no material has been placed on record about their hardship. In absence of such requisite as provided in the master circular for cancellation of panel the impugned order is not tenable. Further, there is restriction that once a panel is approved, should not be normally cancelled. No material is placed on record, as to which authority was competent to approve the panel and cancelled the panel. No record is produced as to the "satisfaction" that the irregularities had occurred and such irregularities were of such serious nature, and on account of which some staff have been put to hardship, and that such irregularity, if any, are not rectifiable. The discretion to be exercised by any Statutory Authority is required to be exercised judicially and not arbitrarily.
6.5 Learned counsel also contended that the Respondents - Railway Administration has tried to justify their action of cancelling the entire selection process held at Mumbai on 28.09.2024, thereafter, the Divisional Office of Rajkot issued a list of eleven employees vide letter dated 22.10.2024 who are found suitable to be considered for records verification for promotion to the post of JE and subsequently a final panel dated 14.11.2024 wherein names of six most suitable candidates has been declared for promotion to the post of JE. Accordingly, they were sent for promotional training for period of 13 weeks at Ajmer and they were declared pass in the said training as per the result of it declared on 13.03.2025. Thus, the selection process was JITENDRA RAJ 2026.04.17 18:12:23 MEHTA +05'30' 26 OA No.120/208/2025 & OA No.209/2025 concluded and the applicants became fully eligible for their posting as JE (Mechanical / C&W) in Rajkot Division Western Railway.
6.6 Learned counsel would argue that the employees, who have filed representations in respect to the selection in question as disclosed by the Railway Administration are as under:
(i) Mahesh Gadhvi (below in the panel), applicant in O.A No. 13/2025 filed on 22.01.2025 (which is dismissed by CAT, Ahmedabad Bench on 13.02.2026)
(ii) Shri Armugam (below in the panel), applicant in OA No.14/2025 filed on 22.01.2025; (which is dismissed by CAT, Ahmedabad Bench on 13.02.2026)
(iii) Shri Kishore Thoria, has filed a representation on 05.03.2025;
(iv) Ravindrakumar B., has filed a representation dated 16.05.2025;
and
(v) Arunkumar G. has filed a representation dated 16.05.2025.
Therefore, learned counsel for the applicant submits that none of the representation of the above persons, has been submitted within the stipulated time limit as provided in the Master Circular No. 31 dated 09.12.2019 issued by the Railway Board (Annexure R3) and no material of any hardship caused to such applicants has been placed on record by the respondent. Thus the impugned decision for cancellation of the panel is in utter violation of the instructions contained in the master circular as relied upon by the respondents themselves. Therefore, the ground stated by the respondents for cancellation of entire selection process is contrary to the material on record and in violation of extant rules and guidelines.
6.7 Further, it is submitted that the respondents - Railway administration has rejected the representations dated 20.11.2024 of first two persons, viz. Mahesh Gadhvi and Armugam by reasoned order dated 11.12.2024. Both of the applicants i.e. Mahesh Gadhvi and Armugam in OA Nos. 13/2025 and 14/2025 filed by them before this Tribunal have admitted that "when the candidate appeared for the test, there JITENDRA RAJ 2026.04.17 18:12:23 MEHTA +05'30' 27 OA No.120/208/2025 & OA No.209/2025 was a message that there will not be any negative marking". Thus, in absence of any material on record in support of the reasons assigned by the respondents about any prejudice caused to the participants in the CBT held on 28.09.2024 due to wrong mentioning of the RBE No. 196/2018 instead of 194/2019 and any rebuttal to the submission of the applicants‟ that every candidate was well informed before the beginning of the test about „no negative marks‟ in the present CBT the respondents have erroneously considered the same as ground for cancellation of the selection process. After the reasoned order dated 11.12.2024 was passed whereby the representation of such employees surprisingly, the respondents - Railway Administration took u-turn without any fresh material before it, and issued show cause notice dated 17.04.2025 to the selected candidates, who were placed on panel formed, proposing to cancel the selection and the panel formed. The said action of the respondents therefore is contrary to the material on record and the same is issued arbitrarily which is not permissible under the eye of law.
6.8 Learned counsel for the applicants also relied upon the Full Bench judgment passed by CAT, Ernakulam Bench in OA No. 180/00604/2023 dated 09.10.2025 in the case of Shri Sankar N.S. and Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. and submits that by referring the judgment passed by a Constitution Bench of Hon‟ble Apex Court in Tej Prakash Pathak Vs. Hon‟ble High Court of Rajasthan reported in (2025) 2 SCC 1 and in Partha Das and others vs. Tripura and others reported in (2025) SCC OnLine SC 1844 the Tribunal held that the impugned decision therein for cancellation of a panel without discharging the burden on the part of the respondents to justify the decision on the anvil of Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India is not tenable in the eye of law. In this regard learned counsel for the applicants relied upon the observation of the Hon‟ble Apex Court referred in paras 5.13 and 19 of the said judgment of the Tribunal, which reads as under :-
JITENDRA RAJ 2026.04.17 18:12:23
MEHTA +05'30'
28 OA No.120/208/2025 & OA No.209/2025
"5.13 .......the Constitutional Bench decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Tej Prakash Pathak vs. High Court of Rajasthan, reported in (2025) 2 SCC 1, wherein the Hon‟ble Apex Court held that:
"eligibility criteria for being placed in the select list, notified at the commencement of the recruitment process, cannot be changed midway unless permitted under the extant rules or advertisement, and even if so, the change must satisfy Article 14 and the test of non-
arbitrariness.‖ ―19. Further it is submitted that while considering the plea of larger public interest and the change of rules of the game after the game had begun by referring and relying upon the dicta laid down by Constitutional Bench of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Tej Prakash Pathak (supra), the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Partha Das and others vs. Tripura and others reported in (2025) SCC OnLine SC 1844 held as under:-
―43. Apart from this, there is no mention even in the NRP as to how larger public interest can be achieved by abolition of interviews for Group-D posts such as Enrolled Followers. It is difficult to see how such larger public interest can be achieved in the present context specifically where the recruitment process for Enrolled Followers was at a significantly advanced stage and interviews had already been conducted.
45. It goes without saying that certain level of discretion must be given to the State but merely suggesting that a decision to keep an ongoing recruitment process in abeyance and its subsequent cancellation was in the larger public interest, is not sufficient. The burden is on the State to justify the decision on the anvil of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and show JITENDRA RAJ 2026.04.17 18:12:23 MEHTA +05'30' 29 OA No.120/208/2025 & OA No.209/2025 how its decision was in furtherance of larger public interest.‖ Therefore, learned counsel for the applicants by referring the aforesaid dicta would argue that in the present case the reason assigned by the respondents to cancel the entire selection process does not satisfy the requisite stipulated in Art. 14 of the Constitution of India and the test of non-arbitrariness as held by Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Tej Prakash Pathak (supra) and also failed to establish any larger public interest can be achieved by cancellation of the entire selection process and the burden on the State i.e. respondent herein, to justify the impugned decision on the anvil of Arts. 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India .
Therefore, the impugned order is required to be quashed and set aside.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings as well as judgments on which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the applicants.
8. We find the undisputed fact are that the respondents initiated a selection process for promotion to the post of Junior Engineer (Mechanical - C&W), Level-6 under the 25% Ranker Quota pursuant to notification dated 18.06.2024. The applicants participated in the said selection process, qualified the Computer Based Test (CBT) conducted on 28.09.2024, and was included in the list of successful candidates declared on 22.10.2024.A final panel of selected candidates was duly approved and notified on 14.11.2024, wherein the applicants was placed on merit. Pursuant to the said panel, the applicants and other selected candidates were deputed for mandatory training of 13 weeks, which they successfully completed and were declared "passed". No objection or grievance was raised by any candidate, including the unsuccessful candidates, at any stage prior to declaration of the final panel.The issue relating to negative marking mentioned in the initial notification stood clarified before commencement of the examination, and it is admitted even by the contesting unsuccessful candidates in their earlier proceedings that candidates were informed that no JITENDRA RAJ 2026.04.17 18:12:23 MEHTA +05'30' 30 OA No.120/208/2025 & OA No.209/2025 negative marking would apply. Representations challenging the selection process were submitted only after declaration of the final panel, primarily by unsuccessful candidates, and were initially rejected by the respondents vide reasoned order dated 11.12.2024. Thereafter, without any new material on record, the respondents issued the impugned show cause notice dated 17.04.2025 proposing cancellation of the entire selection process and panel. Subsequently, the respondents passed orders dated 02.05.2025 cancelling the entire selection process.
9. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, the following issues arise for consideration:
(i) Whether the impugned show cause notice dated 17.04.2025 and consequential orders dated 02.05.2025 cancelling the entire selection process and panel are legally sustainable?
(ii) Whether the objections raised by unsuccessful candidates and other persons, after participating in the selection process without protest, are barred by the principles of estoppel and waiver?
(iii) Whether the alleged irregularities (negative marking issue and exclusion of eligible candidates) are of such a grave nature so as to vitiate the entire selection process?
(iv) Whether the action of the respondents in cancelling the entire panel, after declaration of results and completion of training, is arbitrary, disproportionate, and violative of settled legal principles?
10. With regard to Issue No. (i) as framed above, namely, whether the impugned show cause notice dated 17.04.2025 and consequential orders dated 02.05.2025 cancelling the entire selection process and panel are legally sustainable, we find that the impugned show cause notice dated 17.04.2025 proposed cancellation of the entire selection process primarily on two grounds, i.e., incorrect reference to RBE No.196/2018 JITENDRA RAJ 2026.04.17 18:12:23 MEHTA +05'30' 31 OA No.120/208/2025 & OA No.209/2025 (negative marking) has been made in the Notification dated 18.06.2024 issued by the HQs Western Railway, Mumbai and alleged exclusion of certain eligible candidates in the Notification. However, from the record, it is evident that the first ground relating to negative marking has been dropped by the respondents themselves in the final order dated 02.05.2025 since all the candidates were informed well in advance about non applicability of negative markings in terms of Railway Board‟s Instructions before the CBT held and so far as the second ground relating to exclusion of eligible candidates is concerned the same is not supported by any cogent material, as the respondents have failed to demonstrate that what exact irregularity occurred, how many eligible candidates were left out, Whether such irregularity was systemic and incurable.
10.1 It is well settled that cancellation of an entire selection process is an extreme measure, which can be resorted to only when the process is vitiated in its entirety. In Union of India vs. Rajesh P.U. Puthuvalnikikathu (AIR 2003 SC 4222), the Hon‟ble Supreme Court held that cancellation of the entire selection is not justified unless irregularities are widespread and go to the root of the process. The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced as under:-
"6. On a careful consideration of the contentions on either side in the light of the materials brought on record, including the relevant portions of the report said to have been submitted by the Special Committee constituted for the purpose of inquiring into the irregularities, if any, in the selection of candidates, filed on our directions -- which report itself seems to have been also produced for the perusal of the High Court -- there appears to be no scope for any legitimate grievance against the decision rendered by the High Court. There seems to be no serious grievance of any malpractices as such in the process of the written examination -- either by the candidates or by those who actually conducted them. If the Board itself decided to dictate the questions on a loudspeaker in English and Hindi and none of the participants had any grievance in understanding them or answering them, there is no justification to surmise at a later stage that the time lapse in dictating them in different languages left any room or scope for the candidates to discuss among them the possible answers. The posting of invigilators for every ten candidates would belie any such assumptions. Even that apart, the Special Committee constituted does not appear to have condemned that part of the selection process relating to conduct of the written examination itself, except noticing only certain infirmities only in the matter of evaluation of answer-sheets JITENDRA RAJ 2026.04.17 18:12:23 MEHTA +05'30' 32 OA No.120/208/2025 & OA No.209/2025 with reference to correct answers and allotment of marks to answers of some of the questions. In addition thereto, it appears that the Special Committee has extensively scrutinized and reviewed the situation by re-evaluating the answer-sheets of all the 134 successful as well as the 184 unsuccessful candidates and ultimately found that except 31 candidates found to have been declared successful though they were not really entitled to be so declared successful and selected for appointment there was no infirmity whatsoever in the selection of the other successful candidates than the 31 identified by the Special Committee. In the light of the above and in the absence of any specific or categorical finding supported by any concrete and relevant material that widespread infirmities of an all-pervasive nature, which could be really said to have undermined the very process itself in its entirety or as a whole and it was impossible to weed out the beneficiaries of one or the other irregularities, or illegalities, if any, there was hardly any justification in law to deny appointment to the other selected candidates whose selections were not found to be, in any manner, vitiated for any one or the other reasons. Applying a unilaterally rigid and arbitrary standard to cancel the entirety of the selections despite the firm and positive information that except 31 of such selected candidates, no infirmity could be found with reference to others, is nothing but total disregard of relevancies and allowing to be carried away by irrelevancies, giving a complete go-by to contextual considerations throwing to the winds the principle of proportionality in going farther than what was strictly and reasonably to meet the situation. In short, the competent authority completely misdirected itself in taking such an extreme and unreasonable decision of cancelling the entire selections, wholly unwarranted and unnecessary even on the factual situation found too, and totally in excess of the nature and gravity of what was at stake, thereby virtually rendering such decision to be irrational."
10.2 Similarly, in Tejvir Singh Sodhi vs. State of J&K reported in AIR 2023 SC 2014 it was held that minor irregularities which do not affect the core of the selection cannot be a ground to annul the entire process. The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced as under:-
"Selection process for public employment : Interference by courts
31. Before proceeding further, it is necessary to preface our judgment with the view that courts in India generally avoid interfering in the selection process of public employment, recognising the importance of maintaining the autonomy and integrity of the selection process. The courts recognise that the process of selection involves a high degree of expertise and discretion and that it is not appropriate for courts to substitute their judgment for that of a Selection Committee. It would be indeed, treading on thin ice for us if we were to venture into reviewing the decision of experts who form a part of a Selection Board. The law on the scope and extent of judicial review of a selection process and results thereof, may be understood on consideration of the following case law.
32. In Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke v. B.S. Mahajan [Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke v. B.S. Mahajan, (1990) 1 SCC 305 : 1990 SCC (L&S) 80 : AIR 1990 SC 434] , this Court clarified the scope of judicial JITENDRA RAJ 2026.04.17 18:12:23 MEHTA +05'30' 33 OA No.120/208/2025 & OA No.209/2025 review of a selection process, in the following words : (SCC pp. 309-10, para 12) ―12. ... It is needless to emphasise that it is not the function of the court to hear appeals over the decisions of the Selection Committees and to scrutinise the relative merits of the candidates. Whether a candidate is fit for a particular post or not has to be decided by the duly constituted Selection Committee which has the expertise on the subject. The court has no such expertise. The decision of the Selection Committee can be interfered with only on limited grounds, such as illegality or patent material irregularity in the constitution of the Committee or its procedure vitiating the selection, or proved mala fides affecting the selection, etc.‖
33. In a similar vein, in Deptt. of Health & Family Welfare v. Anita Puri [Deptt. of Health & Family Welfare v. Anita Puri, (1996) 6 SCC 282 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 1491] , this Court observed as under as regards the sanctity of a selection process and the grounds on which the results thereof may be interfered with : (SCC p. 287, para 9) ―9. ... It is too well settled that when a selection is made by an expert body like the Public Service Commission which is also advised by experts having technical experience and high academic qualification in the field for which the selection is to be made, the courts should be slow to interfere with the opinion expressed by experts unless allegations of mala fides are made and established. It would be prudent and safe for the courts to leave the decisions on such matters to the experts who are more familiar with the problems they face than the courts. If the expert body considers suitability of a candidate for a specified post after giving due consideration to all the relevant factors, then the court should not ordinarily interfere with such selection and evaluation.‖
34. This position was reiterated by this Court in M.V. Thimmaiah v. UPSC [M.V. Thimmaiah v. UPSC, (2008) 2 SCC 119 :
(2008) 1 SCC (L&S) 409] , in the following words : (SCC pp. 131 & 135-36, paras 21 & 30) ―21. Now, comes the question with regard to the selection of the candidates. Normally, the recommendations of the Selection Committee cannot be challenged except on the ground of mala fides or serious violation of the statutory rules. The courts cannot sit as an appellate authority to examine the recommendations of the Selection Committee like the court of appeal. This discretion has been given to the Selection Committee only and courts rarely sit as a court of appeal to examine the selection of the candidates nor is the business of the court to examine each candidate and record its opinion. ...
***
30. We fail to understand how the Tribunal can sit as an appellate authority to call for the personal records and constitute Selection Committee to undertake this exercise. This power is not given to the Tribunal and it should be clearly understood that the assessment of the Selection Committee is not subject to appeal either before the Tribunal or by the courts. One has to give credit to the Selection Committee for making their assessment and it is not subject to appeal. Taking the overall view of ACRs of the candidates, one may be held to be very good and another may be held to be good. If this type of interference is permitted then it would virtually amount that the Tribunals and the JITENDRA RAJ 2026.04.17 18:12:23 MEHTA +05'30' 34 OA No.120/208/2025 & OA No.209/2025 High Courts have started sitting as Selection Committee or act as an appellate authority over the selection. It is not their domain, it should be clearly understood, as has been clearly held by this Court in a number of decisions.‖
35.Om Prakash Poplai v. Delhi Stock Exchange Assn. Ltd. [Om Prakash Poplai v. Delhi Stock Exchange Assn. Ltd., (1994) 2 SCC 117] , was a case where an appeal was filed before this Court challenging the selection of the members to the Delhi Stock Exchange on the ground that the Selection Committee formed for the aforesaid purpose, arbitrarily favoured some candidates and was thus, against Article 14. This Court rejected the allegation of favouritism and bias by holding as under : (SCC p. 123, para 5) ―5. ... the selection of members by the Expert Committee had to be done on the basis of an objective criteria taking into consideration experience, professional qualifications and similar related factors. In the present cases, we find that certain percentage of marks were allocated for each of these factors, namely, educational qualifications, experience, financial background and knowledge of the relevant laws and procedures pertaining to public issues, etc. Of the total marks allocated only 20% were reserved for interviews. Therefore, the process of selection by the Expert Committee was not left entirely to the sweet will of the members of that Committee. The area of play was limited to 20% and having regard to the fact that the members of the Expert Committee comprised of two members nominated by the Central Government it is difficult to accept the contention that they acted in an unreasonable or arbitrary fashion.‖
36. Thus, the inexorable conclusion that can be drawn is that it is not within the domain of the courts, exercising the power of judicial review, to enter into the merits of a selection process, a task which is the prerogative of and is within the expert domain of a Selection Committee, subject of course to a caveat that if there are proven allegations of malfeasance or violations of statutory rules, only in such cases of inherent arbitrariness, can the courts intervene.
37. Thus, courts while exercising the power of judicial review cannot step into the shoes of the Selection Committee or assume an appellate role to examine whether the marks awarded by the Selection Committee in the viva voce are excessive and not corresponding to their performance in such test. The assessment and evaluation of the performance of candidates appearing before the Selection Committee/Interview Board should be best left to the members of the committee. In light of the position that a Court cannot sit in appeal against the decision taken pursuant to a reasonably sound selection process, the following grounds raised by the writ petitioners, which are based on an attack of subjective criteria employed by the Selection Board/interview panel in assessing the suitability of candidates, namely, (i) that the candidates who had done their postgraduation had been awarded 10 marks and in the viva voce, such PG candidates had been granted either 18 marks or 20 marks out of 20; (ii) that although the writ petitioners had performed exceptionally well in the interview, the authorities had acted in an arbitrary manner while carrying out the selection process, would not hold any water."
10.3 In the present case, as noted hereinabove, the respondents have not refuted the submission of the counsel for the applicants that the JITENDRA RAJ 2026.04.17 18:12:23 MEHTA +05'30' 35 OA No.120/208/2025 & OA No.209/2025 persons/employees who have submitted the representation were as such promoted to the equivalent post and the representation has not been submitted within the timeline prescribed in the master circular No. 31 dated 19.12.2019 issued by the Railway Board nor any material has been placed on record any hardship or prejudice has been caused public at large. Under the circumstances, the respondents have failed to establish any such grave illegality. Thus, the impugned action is legally unsustainable.
11. With regard to issue (ii) as framed above, namely, whether the objections raised by unsuccessful candidates and other persons, after participating in the selection process without protest, are barred by the principles of estoppel and waiver,it is an admitted position that the unsuccessful candidates, namely, Shri Mahesh Gadhvi and Shri Armugam, participated in the entire selection process without raising any objection at any stage prior to the declaration of results, and only challenged the process after being declared unsuccessful.The law on this issue is no longer res integra. In Ashok Kumar vs. State of Bihar reported in AIR 2016 SC 5069, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court held that a candidate who participates in a selection process without objection cannot subsequently challenge it upon being unsuccessful. The principle of estoppel applies. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court, in paras 12 and 13 of the said judgment, has crystallized the legal position as under:
"12. The appellants participated in the fresh process of selection. If the appellants were aggrieved by the decision to hold a fresh process, they did not espouse their remedy. Instead, they participated in the fresh process of selection and it was only upon being unsuccessful that they challenged the result in the writ petition. This was clearly not open to the appellants. The principle of estoppel would operate.
Further, in para 13, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:-
"13. The law on the subject has been crystallised in several decisions of this Court. In Chandra Prakash Tiwari v. Shakuntala Shukla [Chandra Prakash Tiwari v. Shakuntala Shukla, (2002) 6 SCC 127 : 2002 SCC (L&S) 830] , this Court laid down the principle that when a candidate appears at an examination without objection and is subsequently found to be not successful, a challenge to the process is precluded. The question of entertaining a petition challenging an examination would not arise where a candidate has appeared and participated. He or she cannot subsequently turn around and contend that the process was unfair or that there was a JITENDRA RAJ 2026.04.17 18:12:23 MEHTA +05'30' 36 OA No.120/208/2025 & OA No.209/2025 lacuna therein, merely because the result is not palatable. In Union of India v. S. Vinodh Kumar [Union of India v. S. Vinodh Kumar, (2007) 8 SCC 100 : (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 792] , this Court held that :
(SCC p. 107, para 18) ―18. It is also well settled that those candidates who had taken part in the selection process knowing fully well the procedure laid down therein were not entitled to question the same. (See Munindra Kumar v. Rajiv Govil [Munindra Kumar v. Rajiv Govil, (1991) 3 SCC 368 : 1991 SCC (L&S) 1052] and Rashmi Mishra v. M.P. Public Service Commission [Rashmi Mishra v. M.P. Public Service Commission,(2006) 12 SCC 724:(2007)2 SCC(L&S)345]‖.
14. The same view was reiterated in Amlan Jyoti Borooah [Amlan Jyoti Borooah v. State of Assam, (2009) 3 SCC 227 : (2009) 1 SCC (L&S) 627] wherein it was held to be well settled that the candidates who have taken part in a selection process knowing fully well the procedure laid down therein are not entitled to question it upon being declared to be unsuccessful.
15. In Manish Kumar Shahi v. State of Bihar [Manish Kumar Shahi v. State of Bihar, (2010) 12 SCC 576 : (2011) 1 SCC (L&S) 256] , the same principle was reiterated in the following observations : (SCC p. 584, para 16) ―16. We also agree with the High Court [Manish Kumar Shahi v. State of Bihar, 2008 SCC OnLine Pat 321 : (2009) 4 SLR 272] that after having taken part in the process of selection knowing fully well that more than 19% marks have been earmarked for viva voce test, the petitioner is not entitled to challenge the criteria or process of selection. Surely, if the petitioner's name had appeared in the merit list, he would not have even dreamed of challenging the selection. The petitioner invoked jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India only after he found that his name does not figure in the merit list prepared by the Commission. This conduct of the petitioner clearly disentitles him from questioning the selection and the High Court did not commit any error by refusing to entertain the writ petition. Reference in this connection may be made to the judgments in Madan Lal v. State of J&K [Madan Lal v. State of J&K, (1995) 3 SCC 486 : 1995 SCC (L&S) 712] , Marripati Nagaraja v. State of A.P. [Marripati Nagaraja v. State of A.P., (2007) 11 SCC 522 : (2008) 1 SCC (L&S) 68] , Dhananjay Malik v. State of Uttaranchal [Dhananjay Malik v. State of Uttaranchal, (2008) 4 SCC 171 : (2008) 1 SCC (L&S) 1005 : (2008) 3 PLJR 271] , Amlan Jyoti Borooah v. State of Assam [Amlan Jyoti Borooah v. State of Assam, (2009) 3 SCC 227 : (2009) 1 SCC (L&S) 627] and K.A. Nagamani v. Indian Airlines [K.A. Nagamani v. Indian Airlines, (2009) 5 SCC 515 :
(2009) 2 SCC (L&S) 57] .‖
16. In Vijendra Kumar Verma v. Public Service Commission [Vijendra Kumar Verma v. Public Service Commission, (2011) 1 SCC 150 : (2011) 1 SCC (L&S) 21] , candidates who had participated in the selection process were aware that they were required to possess certain specific qualifications in computer operations. The appellants had appeared in the selection process and after participating in the interview sought to challenge the selection process as being without jurisdiction. This was held to be impermissible.
JITENDRA RAJ 2026.04.17 18:12:23
MEHTA +05'30'
37 OA No.120/208/2025 & OA No.209/2025
17. In Ramesh Chandra Shah v. Anil Joshi [Ramesh Chandra Shah v. Anil Joshi, (2013) 11 SCC 309 : (2011) 3 SCC (L&S) 129] , candidates who were competing for the post of Physiotherapist in the State of Uttarakhand participated in a written examination held in pursuance of an advertisement. This Court held that if they had cleared the test, the respondents would not have raised any objection to the selection process or to the methodology adopted. Having taken a chance of selection, it was held that the respondents were disentitled to seek relief under Article 226 and would be deemed to have waived their right to challenge the advertisement or the procedure of selection. This Court held that : (SCC p. 318, para 18) ―18. It is settled law that a person who consciously takes part in the process of selection cannot, thereafter, turn around and question the method of selection and its outcome.‖ 11.1 Further, in Chandra Prakash Tiwari vs. Shakuntala Shukla, reported in (2002) 6 SCC 127, it was held that a candidate cannot approbate and reprobate as he cannot take a chance in the selection and thereafter question the process, the relevant portion of which reads as under:-
"33. Subsequently, the decision in Om Prakash [1986 Supp SCC 285 : 1986 SCC (L&S) 644] stands followed by a later decision of this Court in Madan Lal v. State of J&K [(1995) 3 SCC 486 : 1995 SCC (L&S) 712 : (1995) 29 ATC 603] wherein this Court stated as below: (SCC p. 493, paras 9-10) ―9. Before dealing with this contention, we must keep in view the salient fact that the petitioners as well as the contesting successful candidates being respondents concerned herein, were all found eligible in the light of marks obtained in the written test, to be eligible to be called for oral interview. Up to this stage there is no dispute between the parties. The petitioners also appeared at the oral interview conducted by the members concerned of the Commission who interviewed the petitioners as well as the contesting respondents concerned. Thus the petitioners took a chance to get themselves selected at the said oral interview. Only because they did not find themselves to have emerged successful as a result of their combined performance both at written test and oral interview, they have filed this petition. It is now well settled that if a candidate takes a calculated chance and appears at the interview, then, only because the result of the interview is not palatable to him, he cannot turn round and subsequently contend that the process of interview was unfair or the Selection Committee was not properly constituted. In the case of Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla [1986 Supp SCC 285 : 1986 SCC (L&S) 644] it has been clearly laid down by a Bench of three learned Judges of this Court that when the petitioner appeared at the examination without protest and when he found that he would not succeed in examination he filed a petition challenging JITENDRA RAJ 2026.04.17 18:12:23 MEHTA +05'30' 38 OA No.120/208/2025 & OA No.209/2025 the said examination, the High Court should not have granted any relief to such a petitioner.
10. Therefore, the result of the interview test on merits cannot be successfully challenged by a candidate who takes a chance to get selected at the said interview and who ultimately finds himself to be unsuccessful. It is also to be kept in view that in this petition we cannot sit as a court of appeal and try to reassess the relative merits of the candidates concerned who had been assessed at the oral interview nor can the petitioners successfully urge before us that they were given less marks though their performance was better. It is for the Interview Committee which amongst others consisted of a sitting High Court Judge to judge the relative merits of the candidates who were orally interviewed, in the light of the guidelines laid down by the relevant rules governing such interviews. Therefore, the assessment on merits as made by such an expert committee cannot be brought in challenge only on the ground that the assessment was not proper or justified as that would be the function of an appellate body and we are certainly not acting as a court of appeal over the assessment made by such an expert committee.‖
34. There is thus no doubt that while question of any estoppel by conduct would not arise in the contextual facts but the law seems to be well settled that in the event a candidate appears at the interview and participates therein, only because the result of the interview is not ―palatable‖ to him, he cannot turn round and subsequently contend that the process of interview was unfair or there was some lacuna in the process."
11.2 The above principle has been consistently reiterated in Union of India vs. S. Vinodh Kumar reported in (2007) 8 SCC 100 as also in Manish Kumar Shahi vs. State of Bihar reported in (2010) 12 SCC 576, the relevant portion thereof reads as under:-
"16. We also agree with the High Court that after having taken part in the process of selection knowing fully well that more than 19% marks have been earmarked for viva voce test, the petitioner is not entitled to challenge the criteria or process of selection. Surely, if the petitioner's name had appeared in the merit list, he would not have even dreamed of challenging the selection. The petitioner invoked jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India only after he found that his name does not figure in the merit list prepared by the Commission. This conduct of the petitioner clearly disentitles him from questioning the selection and the High Court did not commit any error by refusing to entertain the writ petition. Reference in this connection may be made to the judgments in Madan Lal v. State of J&K [(1995) 3 SCC 486 : 1995 SCC (L&S) 712 : (1995) JITENDRA RAJ 2026.04.17 18:12:23 MEHTA +05'30' 39 OA No.120/208/2025 & OA No.209/2025 29 ATC 603] , Marripati Nagaraja v. Govt. of A.P. [(2007) 11 SCC 522 : (2008) 1 SCC (L&S) 68] , Dhananjay Malik v. State of Uttaranchal [(2008) 4 SCC 171 : (2008) 1 SCC (L&S) 1005] , Amlan Jyoti Borooah v. State of Assam [(2009) 3 SCC 227 : (2009) 1 SCC (L&S) 627] and K.A. Nagamani v. Indian Airlines [(2009) 5 SCC 515 : (2009) 2 SCC (L&S) 57] ."
11.3 Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramesh Chandra Shah vs. Anil Joshi, reported in (2013) 11 SCC 309, also held that :
"18. It is settled law that a person who consciously takes part in the process of selection cannot, thereafter, turn around and question the method of selection and its outcome.
****** ****** ******
21. In Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla [1986 Supp SCC 285 : 1986 SCC (L&S) 644] , a three-Judge Bench ruled that when the petitioner appeared in the examination without protest, he was not entitled to challenge the result of the examination. The same view was reiterated in Madan Lal v. State of J&K [(1995) 3 SCC 486 : 1995 SCC (L&S) 712 :
(1995) 29 ATC 603] in the following words: (SCC p. 493, para 9) ―9. ... The petitioners also appeared at the oral interview conducted by the Members concerned of the Commission who interviewed the petitioners as well as the contesting respondents concerned. Thus the petitioners took a chance to get themselves selected at the said oral interview. Only because they did not find themselves to have emerged successful as a result of their combined performance both at written test and oral interview, they have filed this petition. It is now well settled that if a candidate takes a calculated chance and appears at the interview, then, only because the result of the interview is not palatable to him, he cannot turn round and subsequently contend that the process of interview was unfair or the Selection Committee was not properly constituted. In Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla [1986 Supp SCC 285 : 1986 SCC (L&S) 644] it has been clearly laid down by a Bench of three learned Judges of this Court that when the petitioner appeared at the examination without protest and when he found that he would not succeed in examination he filed a petition challenging the said examination, the High Court should not have granted any relief to such a petitioner.‖
22. In Manish Kumar Shahi v. State of Bihar [(2010) 12 SCC 576 : (2011) 1 SCC (L&S) 256] , this Court reiterated the principle laid down in the earlier judgments and observed: (SCC p. 584, para 16) ―16. We also agree with the High Court that after having taken part in the process of selection knowing fully well that more than 19% marks have been earmarked for viva voce test, the petitioner is not entitled to challenge the criteria or process of selection. Surely, if the petitioner's name had appeared in the merit list, he would not have even dreamed of challenging the selection. The petitioner invoked jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India only after he found that his name does not figure in the merit list prepared by the Commission. This conduct of the petitioner clearly disentitles him from questioning the selection and the High Court did not commit any error by refusing to entertain the writ petition.‖ JITENDRA RAJ 2026.04.17 18:12:23 MEHTA +05'30' 40 OA No.120/208/2025 & OA No.209/2025
23. The doctrine of waiver was also invoked in Vijendra Kumar Verma v. Public Service Commission [(2011) 1 SCC 150 : (2011) 1 SCC (L&S) 21] and it was held: (SCC p. 156, para 24) ―24. When the list of successful candidates in the written examination was published in such notification itself, it was also made clear that the knowledge of the candidates with regard to basic knowledge of computer operation would be tested at the time of interview for which knowledge of Microsoft Operating System and Microsoft Office operation would be essential. In the call letter also which was sent to the appellant at the time of calling him for interview, the aforesaid criteria was reiterated and spelt out. Therefore, no minimum benchmark or a new procedure was ever introduced during the midstream of the selection process. All the candidates knew the requirements of the selection process and were also fully aware that they must possess the basic knowledge of computer operation meaning thereby Microsoft Operating System and Microsoft Office operation.
Knowing the said criteria, the appellant also appeared in the interview, faced the questions from the expert of computer application and has taken a chance and opportunity therein without any protest at any stage and now cannot turn back to state that the aforesaid procedure adopted was wrong and without jurisdiction.‖
24. In view of the propositions laid down in the above noted judgments, it must be held that by having taken part in the process of selection with full knowledge that the recruitment was being made under the General Rules, the respondents had waived their right to question the advertisement or the methodology adopted by the Board for making selection and the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court committed grave error by entertaining the grievance made by the respondents."
11.4 Applying the above settled law, the objections raised by such candidates are clearly barred by estoppel and waiver.
12. With regard to Issue No. (iii) as framed above, namely, whether the alleged irregularities (negative marking issue and exclusion of eligible candidates) are of such a grave nature so as to vitiate the entire selection process, we observe that so far as 'Negative Marking Issue' is concerned, from the record, it is clear that candidates were informed before the examination that no negative marking would apply. This fact is admitted even by the unsuccessful candidates. No candidate raised any objection before or immediately after the examination. No prejudice has been demonstrated. Thus, the alleged irregularity was rectified before the examination, and did not affect the fairness of the process. Rather the respondents themselves by passing the impugned order dated 02.05.2025 have dropped the ground of negative marking JITENDRA RAJ 2026.04.17 18:12:23 MEHTA +05'30' 41 OA No.120/208/2025 & OA No.209/2025 as enumerated in the impugned show cause notice dated 17.04.2025. Hence, it cannot be said to vitiate the selection.
12.1 Coming to second ground, namely, Alleged Exclusion of Eligible Candidates, we find that the respondents have failed to substantiate that any eligible candidate was actually excluded and such exclusion materially affected the outcome. On the contrary, the record shows that most of the categories were duly considered, representations were made belatedly (March-May 2025), some persons were either unwilling, ineligible, or already holding equivalent posts. Even assuming that some candidates were left out, the settled legal position is that where irregularities are curable, the entire selection should not be cancelled. In such cases, the appropriate course is to conduct a supplementary selection. This principle is based on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh P.U. Puthuvalnikikathu (supra) and Tejvir Singh Sodhi (supra). Thus, the alleged irregularities are not of such magnitude as to vitiate the entire selection.
12.2 At this stage it is apt to mention that the OAs filed by the unsuccessful candidates in the selection process i.e. OA Nos. 13 and 14 of 2025 challenging the panel dated 16.12.2024 notified by the respondents for promotion to the post of JE (C&W) against 25% Ranker quota in respect to Rajkot Division, the test conducted by the respondents on 28.09.2024 as well the order of respondents whereby the representation of the applicants therein was rejected, the said OAs were dismissed as become infructuous vide order dated 13.02.2026 by this Tribunal.
13. With regard to Issue No. (iv) as framed above, namely, whether the action of the respondents in cancelling the entire panel, after declaration of results and completion of training, is arbitrary, disproportionate, and violative of settled legal principles, to delve into this issue, the undisputed facts are crucial, like the selection process was completed, final panel was declared on 14.11.2024, selected candidates underwent 13 weeks of training, candidates were declared JITENDRA RAJ 2026.04.17 18:12:23 MEHTA +05'30' 42 OA No.120/208/2025 & OA No.209/2025 "passed", a reasoned order dated 11.12.2024 had already rejected similar objections. Thereafter, without fresh material, respondents took a u-turn. Such conduct clearly indicates non-application of mind, arbitrariness, and absence of bona fide reasons.
13.1 Further, as per Master Circular No.31, relied upon by the respondents themselves, it is evident that a panel once approved should not normally be cancelled, representations must be made within two months, and cancellation requires satisfaction of serious irregularity. However, in the present case, admittedly, said representations were clearly time-barred, satisfaction of grave irregularity is not recorded, and no material justifying such drastic action is produced. Thus, the impugned action is arbitrary, disproportionate, and contrary to settled principles of administrative law.
13.2 As noted hereinabove none of the categories of employees have been said to be prejudiced with the selection process in question. The said core submission of applicants has not been refuted by the respondents. On the contrary, as discussed the applicants have demonstrated that as per the details of the participants in the selection process which also include the employees of the different categories which is alleged not to have got opportunity to participate in the selection process. Thus, in absence of any material in support of the reasons assigned for cancellation of the entire selection process we find substantial force in the submission of the leaned counsel for the applicants. So far judgment relied upon by the learned counsel passed by Hon‟ble Supreme Court in UOI & Ors. Vs. O. Chakradhar, reported in (2002) 3 SCC 146 & the judgment passed by Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Police Vs. Umesh Kumar reported in (2020)10 SCC 448 and submit that the applicant has no vested right to claim promotion based on empanelment of their names is concerned the same is not helpful to the applicants in the facts and circumstances of the present case, as discussed hereinabove. Suffice it to state that on declaration of the final panel for promotion to the post of JE (Mechanical) Ranker quota for the Rajkot Division, the successful JITENDRA RAJ 2026.04.17 18:12:23 MEHTA +05'30' 43 OA No.120/208/2025 & OA No.209/2025 candidates were sent for promotional training for 13 weeks which has been successfully passed by the applicants herein, under the circumstances the right of the applicants to be promoted to the higher post of JE has been accrued and in absence of any justifiable ground the applicants cannot be deprived of their right for promotion.
13.3 We also find substantial force in the submission of the learned counsel for the applicants that the respondents failed to justify the decision for cancellation of the entire selection process on the anvil of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India as correctly relied upon in the dicta laid down by a Constitution Bench of Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Tej Prakash (supra) and the judgment passed by Hon‟ble Apex Court in Pratha Dass (supra). At the same time, the justification offered by the respondents is not tenable in the eye of law in view of the aforesaid discussions and we find that the decision making process for issuance of the impugned orders suffers from legal infirmities. The respondents are under legal obligation to give effect of the result of the selection process by operating the panel dated 14.11.2024/06.12.2024 which was approved by the competent authority for the promotional post of JE (C&W) against 25% ranker quota at Rajkot Division, Western Railway.
14. In view of the above issue-wise analysis, we hold that the impugned show cause notice dated 17.04.2025 and consequential orders/decisions dated 02.05.2025 issued by the office of respondent No. 2 for cancellation of entire selection process and the panel dated 14.11.2024 for promotion to the post of JE (C&W) (Mechanical) against 25% ranker quota of the Rajkot Division, are illegal, arbitrary, and unsustainable in law. Thus, the said impugned notice dated 17.04.2025 (Annexure A/1) and the orders/decision dated 02.02.2025 (Annexures A/21 and A/22) are quashed and set aside.
15. Resultantly, the OA No. 208/2025 and OA No. 209/2025 are allowed with the following directions:
JITENDRA RAJ 2026.04.17 18:12:23
MEHTA +05'30'
44 OA No.120/208/2025 & OA No.209/2025
The respondents are directed not to with-hold the promotion orders of the applicants named in the panel dated 14.11.2024/06.12.2024 for promotion to the post of JE(C&W) (Mechanical) Level-6 against 25% ranker quota for the Rajkot Division Western Railway and release the promotion orders of the applicants forthwith with all consequential benefits from the date they passed the requisite promotional training as per the result dated 13.03.2025 (Annex.A/14).
16. In view of the above, both the OAs stand allowed with no order as to costs. MA(s) if any also stand disposed of.
(Dr. Hukum Singh Meena) (Jayesh V. Bhairavia)
Member (A) Member (J)
jrm.
JITENDRA RAJ 2026.04.17 18:12:23
MEHTA +05'30'