Central Administrative Tribunal - Lucknow
Ram Singh vs Union Of India on 26 March, 2025
CAT, Lucknow Bench OA No. 332/00215 of 2019 Ram Singh and Others Vs. U.O.I.& Ors.
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
LUCKNOW BENCH LUCKNOW
Original Application No.332/00215/2019
Dated, this day of 26thMarch, 2025
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar Ojha, Member-Judicial
Hon'ble Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Member-Administrative
1. Ram Singh, son of Shri Ram Dayal, resident of Para Tajpur
(Gokula), Haringtonganj, District- Faizabad.
2. Suresh Kumar, son of Shri Mahaveer, resident of Village and Post
Bivaur (Kabeer Nagar), District -Hameerpur.
3. Dharmendra Kumar, son of Shri Dhiri Singh, resident of Bamhauri,
Post-Jawapur, District-Mainpuri.
4. Manoj Kumar, son of Late Shri Kishori Lal, resident of Village and
Post -Diyori Jeet, District -Badaun.
5. Jai Hind Kumar , Son of Late Shri Ram Chandra Prasad, resident of
Village-Bahilpar, Post Pali, Tehsil Sahjanwa, District-Gorakhpur.
6. Mohd. Ashraf, son of Mehndi Hasan, resident of Chandpur behind
Rohil Khand University, District-Bareilly.
7. Sunil Kumar, son of Vishun Deo, resident of Village Bhapsa, Post
Sahjanwa, District-Gorakhpur.
8. Shrawan Kumar Raut, son of Shri Baleswar Raut, resident of
Village-Suryapura, Naya Bela, Post Suryagarh, District -Lakhi Sarai
(State of Bihar).
9. Rakesh Kumar, son of Shri Ram Girish Prasad, resident of
Mustafabad urf Mallaur, Post-Pali, District-Gorakhpur.
10. Saurabh Sachan, son of Shri Chandra Prakash Sachan, resident of
Village Ajyori, Tehsil Ghatampur, District - Kanpur Nagar.
11. Kuldeep Paswan, son of Shri Sushil Chandra, resident of Village
Raiya, Post Vishwanathpur, District-Sant Kabir Nagar.
.....Applicants
By Advocate: Shri Raj Singh
VERSUS
1. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Railways, New Delhi.
2. Deputy Chief Personal Officer (Recruitment), Northern Eastern
Railway, Recruitment Cell CCM Annexe Building, Railway Road No.
14, Gorakhpur.
.....Respondents
By Advocate: Shri Rajendra Singh, Shri B K Shukla and
Shri Shyam Lal Mishra
Page 1 of 6
CAT, Lucknow Bench OA No. 332/00215 of 2019 Ram Singh and Others Vs. U.O.I.& Ors.
ORDER (ORAL)
Per Hon'ble Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Member-Administrative In this case relating to appointment, the applicants have sought the following reliefs:
"(i) Direct the opposite party No. 2 to declare the final result of the applicants and issue appointment letters to them on Group D posts forthwith.
(ii) Pass any other order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.
(iii) Award the cost of the writ petition to the applicant."
2. The applicants in this OA applied in response to the advertisement dated 15.12.2010 published by the respondents for filling up vacancies under North Eastern Railway. They appeared in the written examination conducted on various dates in 2012 and participated in the physical efficiency test conducted on 26.10.2012. Their documents were verified in December, 2012. However, their final result was not declared by the respondents. Aggrieved, the applicants have preferred this OA.
3. The applicants' contention is that out of 4,726 posts advertised by the Railway Recruitment Cell, only 4,158 posts have been filled up leaving about 600 vacancies; yet their result has not been declared by the respondents in an arbitrary manner. Their representations made in 2014 and 2015 have gone unheeded.
4. The respondents state that 4,882 posts were advertised vide notice dated 15.12.2010. In terms of Railway Board's letter dated 17.06.2008, 20% candidates over and above the vacancies should be called for document verification, primarily to avoid shortfall in the panel. Mere calling of candidate for document verification does not entitle him to appointment. As per Railway Board's letter dated 09/10.07.1964, the currency of panel is one year which can be extended by the General Manager further up to one year, but the currency of panel lapses with Page 2 of 6 CAT, Lucknow Bench OA No. 332/00215 of 2019 Ram Singh and Others Vs. U.O.I.& Ors. the publication of new result. The applicants qualified the written examination and were found fit in the physical efficiency test. They were called for document verification as 20% extra candidates. There is no post lying vacant against the employment notice dated 15.12.2010. All the posts have been allotted to the empaneled candidates against the notification. The applicants, who were called as 20% extra candidates, were not recruited due to lower merit position.
5. In the rejoinder affidavit, the applicants maintain that against 4,726 posts advertised by the Railway Recruitment Cell, only about 4,158 results of successful candidates were declared and nearly 600 seats are still lying vacant.
6.1 When the case came up for hearing on 27.11.2024, learned counsel for the applicants drew our attention to the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court on 27.11.2018 in Dinesh Kumar Kashyap vs South Central Railway AIR 2019 SC 24 in which a similar controversy has been settled in regard to posts advertised by South East Central Railway (SECR) vide notice dated 15.12.2010. 6.2 A perusal of the observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dinesh Kumar Kashyap (supra) reveals that that the Apex Court was considering the situation where there were large number of posts lying vacant and the respondents had not resorted to filling up of vacancies from amongst the candidates in the 20% extra replacement panel and made following observations in that regard:
"6.The main issue which arises before us is whether SECR could have ignored the 20% extra panel despite the letter dated 02.07.2008 without giving any cogent reason for the same. No doubt, it is true, that mere selection does not give any vested right to the selected candidate to be appointed. At the same time when a large number of posts are lying vacant and selection process has been followed then the employer must satisfy the court as to why it did not resort to and appoint selected candidates, even if they are from the replacement panel. Just because discretion is vested in the authority, it does not mean that this discretion can be exercised arbitrarily.Page 3 of 6
CAT, Lucknow Bench OA No. 332/00215 of 2019 Ram Singh and Others Vs. U.O.I.& Ors.
No doubt, it is not incumbent upon the employer to fill all the posts but it must give reasons and satisfy the court that it had some grounds for not appointing the candidates who found place in the replacement panel..."
7. ...When the employer is the State it is bound to act according to Article 14 of the Constitution. It cannot without rhyme or reason decide not to fill up the post. It must give some plausible reason for not filling up the posts..."
...
10.The fact that three simultaneous selection processes were undertaken, itself proves that the Respondent No. 1 wanted to fill up all the posts and did not want any vacancies to be unfilled. This negates the plea of the Respondent No. 1 that it was not necessary to fill up the vacant posts..."
(emphasis supplied) 7.1 Keeping in view the contrasting factual assertions taken by the contending parties in regard to the vacancy position, the respondents were directed, vide our order dated 27.11.2024, to submit the list of candidates appointed against the vacancies advertised vide employment notice dated 15.12.2010 within a month to determine whether candidates have been appointed against all posts advertised. 7.2 The respondents have filed affidavit dated 08.03.2025 stating that out of 4,882 vacancies, 4,726 candidates had been empaneled and the remaining 156 vacancies were kept reserved due to various reasons such as impersonation, medically unfit, court cases, OMR tampering etc. It is further stated that as per the Railway Board's letter dated 15.03.2002, the currency of panel is valid for one year only and gets lapsed as soon as the new results are published. Since the result/panel of subsequent notification issued in the year 2012-13, 2013-14, 2018 and 2019 have already been issued, hence the panel of candidates selected earlier (i.e., against notification issued in 2010) is treated as lapsed. No recruitment process is pending against the said notification of year 2010. In light of the above facts and Railway Board's letter dated 15.03.2002 recruitment/any subsequent result/panel publication is neither feasible nor justified at this juncture. It is further averred that at this juncture, it is not feasible to issue any supplementary panel for the Page 4 of 6 CAT, Lucknow Bench OA No. 332/00215 of 2019 Ram Singh and Others Vs. U.O.I.& Ors. year 2010 among 20% extra candidates as the candidates of subsequent notification would also stake their claims which may lead to unwarranted litigation.
8.1 In view of the 156 vacancies reserved by the respondents against the advertisement dated 15.12.2010, we see no legal impediment in accommodating the applicants against these vacancies in terms of Dinesh Kumar Kashyap (supra).
8.2 One issue raised by the respondents in their affidavit dated 08.03.2025 is regarding the validity of the panel. It is noted that this issue has already been settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dinesh Kumar Kashyap (supra) in the following terms:
"11. It has been urged before us that the validity of the panel was only for two years and since the last merit list was published for March 2014, validity of the list has expired in March 2016. This submission is only to be rejected. The appellants herein who approached the CAT and the High Court with promptitude cannot suffer only because the matter was pending in Court."
(emphasis supplied) 8.3 The other apprehension expressed by the respondents that if a supplementary panel for 2010 is issued, it would open the door for unwarranted litigation by 20% extra candidates of subsequent notifications, is also misplaced, in our view, considering the following directions passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dinesh Kumar Kashyap (supra):
"14... While allowing the appeals we issue the following directions:
(i) The benefit of this judgment shall only be available to those appellants who had approached the CAT;
(ii) The appellants shall not be entitled to any back wages;
(iii) The appellants shall, for the purpose of seniority and fixation of pay be placed immediately above the first selected candidates of the selection process which commenced in the year 2012 and, immediately below the candidates of the selection list of 2010 in order of seniority;Page 5 of 6
CAT, Lucknow Bench OA No. 332/00215 of 2019 Ram Singh and Others Vs. U.O.I.& Ors.
(iv) The appellants shall be entitled to notional benefits from the date of such deemed appointment only for the purpose of fixation of pay and seniority."
(emphasis supplied) It follows from highlighted paragraph 14(i) of the judgment quoted above that the benefit is available only to candidates who had approached this Tribunal before the pronouncement of the judgment in Dinesh Kumar Kashyap (supra), i.e., before 27.11.2018, and not to the other candidates. In the instant case, the applicants had approached this Tribunal on 10.07.2016. In view of this position, we see no reason why the applicants herein should be denied the benefit of the ratio decidendi in Dinesh Kumar Kashyap (supra), except for applicants no. 2 and 9 in respect of whom the learned counsel for the applicants submits that he has not received instructions.
9.1 In view of the foregoing, this OA is allowed. The respondents are directed to declare the result in respect of the applicants, except applicants no. 2 and 9, and offer them appointment in the order of their merit against the 156 reserved vacancies in terms of Dinesh Kumar Kashyap (supra) within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
9.2 Pending MAs, if any, also stand disposed of.
9.3 The parties shall bear their own costs.
(Pankaj Kumar) (Justice Anil Kumar Ojha)
Member (A) Member (J)
vidya
Vidya Ben Digitally signed by Vidya Ben Waghela
Waghela
Date: 2025.03.27 16:36:18 +05'30'
Page 6 of 6