Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Rohit Thakurail vs Railway Recruitment Board on 22 May, 2026
(Reserved on 14.05.2026)
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ALLAHABAD BENCH
ALLAHABAD
Pronounced on 22nd day of May, 2026
Original Application No.156 of 2022
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial)
Hon'ble Mr. Anjani Nandan Sharan, Member (Administrative)
Rohit Thakurail, a/a 29 years, S/o Anuj Kumar, R/o 41, Indraprastha
PUNIT KUMAR
MISHRA
Enclave, Dauli Pyau, Mathura
....Applicant
By Advocate: Shri Udai Chandani
VERSUS
1. Union of India, Railway Recruitment Board, Allahabad Opposite NCR
Headquarter Officer, Subedarganj, Allahabad through its Chairman
2. Union of India, Railway Recruitment Board, Allahabad Opposite NCR
Headquarter Officer, Subedarganj, Allahabad through its Secretary
By Advocate: Shri Ajay Kumar Rai.
ORDER
By Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial):-
Heard Ms. Aditi Kesarwani, holding brief of Shri Udai Chandani, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Ajay Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the respondents at the time of hearing.
2. This Original Application is filed by the applicant, under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, seeking following reliefs:-
8. a) To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 06.01.2022 passed by respondent-1.
b) To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents Authority to consider the claim of the applicant relating to appointment on one of the post of Commercial Apprentice (CA), Traffic Apprentice (TA), Enquiry-cum-Reservation Clerk (ECRC), Goods Guard (GG) i.e. category 1, 2, 3 & 4.
c) To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus summoning the records of the applicant from the office of respondent-1 relating to his candidature based on Registration No.1372050078 and Roll No.13318044110523 which will establish the illegality committed by the office of respondent-1 beyond doubt.
d). Issue any further suitable order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the instant case in favour of the applicant.
e). IV. Award the cost of the petition to the applicant.
3. The brief facts of the case, as narrated in the Original Application, are that an advertisement vide CEN No. 03/2015 was floated by the respondents on 26.12.2015 for filling up the Non-Technical Popular PUNIT KUMAR MISHRA Categories (Graduate) posts, wherein the stages of examination relating to Post Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4, i.e., Commercial Apprentice (CA), Traffic Apprentice (TA), Enquiry-cum-Reservation Clerk (ECRC) and Goods Guard (GG), respectively, consisted of a single-stage Computer Based Test (CBT) followed by document verification.
3.1 In pursuance thereof, the applicant, being eligible, applied for the said posts. Subsequently, the applicant appeared in the CBT examination held on 19.01.2017. Thereafter, the provisional cut-off marks for the aforesaid examination were issued, wherein it was found that the applicant had obtained normalized marks of 84.79531 out of 100 and secured an overall rank of 534, but he was not shortlisted for document verification.
3.2 Aggrieved by the same, the applicant sought an information regarding the provisional cut-off marks for short listing candidates for document verification for each category as per the Notice dated 26.12.2015, and it was informed that the provisional cut-off marks for the unreserved category under Category-1 were 87.27741 (NCR), Category-2 were 82.78692 (NCR)/82.71825 (NR), Category-3 were 87.25776 (NCR), and Category-4 were 80.99685 (NCR)/81.21005 (NR). Thereafter, a combined provisional shortlist against the advertised posts was issued along with the roll numbers of shortlisted candidates. Page 2 of 10 3.3 The applicant thereafter filed an application under the R.T.I. Act, 2005 seeking a copy of his online application form, but the same was declined with the remark that the selection procedure was yet to be completed and, therefore, the information sought regarding the post preferences given by candidates could not be supplied at the intermediate stage of the examination process. The applicant also sought several other pieces of information from the office of the respondents, but the same have PUNIT KUMAR MISHRA not been furnished till date. Subsequently, the provisional result relating to all the categories, namely CA, TA, ECRC and GG, i.e., Categories 1, 2, 3 and 4, was declared by the respondents on 11.08.2017. 3.4 Aggrieved thereby, the applicant earlier approached this Tribunal by filing OA No. 1334/2017, which was disposed of vide order dated 06.12.2021 with a direction to the respondents to decide the representation of the applicant by passing a reasoned and speaking order. However, the respondents rejected the claim of the applicant vide order dated 06.01.2022 on the ground that the applicant had initially applied with post preferences for Category-1 and Category-3 only. It was further stated that after publication of CEN No. 03/2015, certain modifications were made in the vacancies and the candidates who had appeared in the 2nd stage of CBT were advised to exercise fresh online preferences. The applicant thereafter opted for Categories 1, 3, 5 and 6, but did not opt for Categories 2 and 4. Since the applicant had secured marks lower than the prescribed cut-off marks, he was not called for document verification. Hence, the present Original Application has been filed challenging the order dated 06.01.2022.
4. On the other hand, the respondents have filed their counter affidavit on 26.05.2022, wherein it has been stated that pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement, the applicant, while filling up the online application Page 3 of 10 form, had given his post preferences for Category-1 (NCR) and Category-3 (NCR). However, after publication of the notification and consequent upon the implementation of the 6th Pay Commission, and in terms of Para 1.14 of CEN No. 03/2015, certain modifications were made in the vacancies of some posts. In view thereof, all candidates who had appeared in the 2nd stage of CBT were advised to exercise fresh preferences within the period from 08.05.2017 to 14.05.2017 through the link provided on the website of PUNIT KUMAR MISHRA the respective RRBs.
4.1 Accordingly, the applicant submitted his fresh preferences for Category-1 (NCR), Category-3 (NCR), Category-5 (NCR) and Category-6 (NCR) only, and did not opt for Categories 2 and 4. The selection of candidates is made on the basis of merit in the written examination as well as the post preferences exercised by the candidates. The cut-off marks for unreserved candidates shortlisted for document verification and typing skill test were 87.27741% for Category-1 (NCR), 87.25776% for Category-3 (NCR), 90.17083% for Category-5 (NCR), and 90.65258% for Category-6 (NCR). However, the applicant had obtained only 84.79531% marks in CBT-2, which were lower than the prescribed cut-off marks. Therefore, he was not shortlisted for document verification and typing skill test due to lower merit. Since the applicant had not opted for Categories 2 and 4, he was also not considered for document verification for those categories/posts. Hence, instant original application is liable to be dismissed.
5. Rejoinder Affidavit was also filed by the applicant on 20.01.2023, wherein, the applicant reiterated the same averments, as made in the original application.
6. Learned proxy counsel for the applicant submitted that, as per the terms and conditions of the advertisement, the selection was required Page 4 of 10 to be made strictly on the basis of merit determined through the CBT/online examination and aptitude test/typing skill test of qualifying nature, wherever applicable. However, the respondents acted contrary to the conditions of the advertisement by giving undue importance to the post preferences exercised by the candidates while filling up the online application form instead of considering the overall merit position. 6.1 Learned proxy counsel for the applicant further contended that PUNIT KUMAR MISHRA the applicant had secured 84.79531 normalized marks, which were higher than the cut-off marks prescribed for Category-2 and Category-4 posts, yet he was not shortlisted for document verification. The action of the respondents in denying consideration to the applicant merely on the ground that he had not exercised preference for Category-2 and Category-4 at the subsequent stage is arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
6.2 It has also been argued that despite repeated efforts made by the applicant under the provisions of the R.T.I. Act, 2005, complete information relating to the selection process and the preferences exercised by the candidates was not supplied by the respondents. According to the learned counsel, the non-supply of relevant information itself creates doubt regarding the fairness and transparency of the selection process adopted by the respondents.
6.3 Lastly, learned proxy counsel submitted that the applicant has been illegally deprived of appointment despite being more meritorious than certain selected candidates and, therefore, the impugned order dated 06.01.2022 is liable to be quashed with a direction to the respondents to consider the candidature of the applicant for appointment against the appropriate post with all consequential benefits. She placed heavy reliance on the judgment of Allahabad High Court passed in case of Bindhyachal Page 5 of 10 Kumar Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors. in Writ A No. 3283/2012 decided on 29.10.2013.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant and submitted that the entire selection process was conducted strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions of CEN No. 03/2015 and there has been no illegality or arbitrariness in the action of the respondents. The selection was not PUNIT KUMAR MISHRA based solely upon marks obtained in the CBT examination, but was also dependent upon the post preferences exercised by the candidates as well as their position in merit.
7.1 Learned counsel further submitted that the applicant had initially exercised his preferences only for Category-1 (NCR) and Category- 3 (NCR). Subsequently, after certain modifications in vacancies pursuant to implementation of the 6th Pay Commission and in terms of Para 1.14 of CEN No. 03/2015, all eligible candidates were provided an opportunity to submit fresh post preferences through the online portal within the stipulated period from 08.05.2017 to 14.05.2017. The applicant, despite being aware of the said process, opted only for Category-1, Category-3, Category-5 and Category-6 and did not exercise any preference for Category-2 and Category-4 posts.
7.2 Learned counsel for the respondents further argued that the applicant cannot now claim consideration for Categories 2 and 4 after consciously choosing not to opt for the said categories during the process of fresh preference submission. The respondents submitted that candidates were considered strictly in accordance with the preferences exercised by them and no candidate was considered for any post/category for which he or she had not given preference.
Page 6 of 10 7.3 Learned counsel for the respondents also submitted that the applicant had secured only 84.79531 normalized marks in CBT-2, whereas the cut-off marks for the posts/categories opted by him were much higher, namely 87.27741% for Category-1 (NCR), 87.25776% for Category-3 (NCR), 90.17083% for Category-5 (NCR) and 90.65258% for Category-6 (NCR). Since the applicant failed to secure marks above the prescribed cut- off for the categories opted by him, he was rightly not shortlisted for PUNIT KUMAR MISHRA document verification and typing skill test.
8. We have considered the arguments, so raised by learned counsels for both the parties and perused the records.
9. From perusal of the records, it appears that the applicant earlier approached this Tribunal by filing Original Application No. 1334/2017, which was disposed of vide order dated 06.12.2021 with a direction to the respondents to decide the representation of the applicant by passing a reasoned and speaking order. However, the respondents rejected the claim of the applicant vide order dated 06.01.2022. For better appreciation of the matter, impugned order dated 06.01.2022 is quoted as under:-
In compliance of Hon'ble CAT/ALD's order dated 06.12 2021 passed in OA No.330/01334/20171 have gone through your representation dated 20.12.2021 (treating OA as representation) rules & facts available on the record and decided the representation accordingly
1. Centralized Employment Notice No. 03/2015 was published for recruitment of NTPC (Graduate Level), Cat. 1-9 for the post of Commercial Apprentice/Traffic Apprentice/ECRC/Goods Guard/JAA cum Typist/Sr. Clerk cum Typist/ASM/Traffic Assistant and Sr. Time Keeper, inviting on-line applications from eligible Indian Nationals for appearing in selection process
2. You have submitted on-line application against above notification by filling post preferences for Cat 1(NCR) and Cat 3(NCR) Copy of your on line application is attached. (Ann-1)
3. After the publication of CEN-03/2015 and consequent upon the implementation of recommendation of 7 CPC and in terms of para 1.14 of CEN, some modifications have been made in vacancies of certain posts
4. In view of above circumstances, all the candidates who appeared in the 2nd stage CBT were advised to exercise option of filling Page 7 of 10 fresh preference within the period from 08.05.2017(00.00 hrs) to 14.05.2017(23.59 hrs) through link provided for the purpose on the website of respective RRBS.
5. Accordingly you had filled your fresh post preferences for Cat 1 (NCR), Cat 3 (NCR), Cat.5 (NCR) and Cat 6 (NCR) only You have not opted for post preferences for post Cat 2 and Cat 4 as claimed by you.
6. The selection of candidates is done on the basis of ment of written examination and post preference given by the candidates.
The cut off marks of UR candidates who were shortlisted for document verification and Typing Skill Test is given as under- For DV-Cat:1 (NCR) cut off marks 87.27741%, for Cat.3 (NCR) cut off marks 87.25776% For Typing Skill Test Cat.5 PUNIT KUMAR MISHRA (NCR) cut off marks 90.17083% and for Cat.6 (NCR) cut off marks 90.65258% You have obtained 84.79531% normalized marks in CBT-2 which is lower marks than the cut off marks hence you had not been shortlisted for document verification and Typing Skill Test due to lower in merit
7. Since you have not opted for post Cat 2 and Cat 4 hence you had not been shortlisted for document verification for these categories/ posts Copy of fresh post preferences filled by you is also attached herewith (Ann-2)
8. Thus keeping in view of your post preferences for Cat 1 (NCR) Cat 3 (NCR), Cat 5 (NCR) and Cat 6 (NCR) and on the basis of marks (less than the cut off marks) obtained by you in the CBT-2, you had not been shortlisted to appear in Document verification for the above categories/posts This disposed of your representation dated 20 12:2021 (treating OA as representation) in compliance of Hon'ble Tribunal order dated 06.12.2021 passed in OA No 330/01334/2017 in your case.
10. From the pleadings on record as well as the impugned order dated 06.01.2022, it is evident that the applicant had initially exercised his preferences only for Category-1 and Category-3 posts pursuant to CEN No.03/2015. Subsequently, due to modification in vacancies after implementation of the recommendations of the 7th Central Pay Commission and in terms of Para 1.14 of the advertisement, all eligible candidates were provided an opportunity to submit fresh post preferences through the online portal within the stipulated period. Admittedly, while submitting fresh preferences, the applicant opted only for Category-1, Category-3, Category-5 and Category-6 and did not exercise any preference for Category-2 and Category-4 posts. The preference as opted by the applicant is brought on record by the respondents as CA-1 & 2 of the Page 8 of 10 counter affidavit, by which, it is crystal clear that the applicant did not exercise any preference for Category-2 and Category-4 Posts. Therefore, the respondents have rightly not considered the case of the applicant under aforesaid Category. In this regard, the respondents have clearly indicated in the Advertisement itself and for better appreciation of the matter, relevant Clause 1.07 and 1.07.01 is quoted as under:-
1.07 Preference for post(s) and /or Railways(s)/Production Units:
PUNIT KUMAR MISHRA Candidates should give their order of preference of post (s) and /or the Railway(s) /Production Unit(s) while applying RRB will allot the post and the Railway/Production Unit to the selected candidates as per the preference of the candidates subject to merit and vacancy position. However, in case of administrative exigencies/requirement, RRBs reserve the right to allot any post/Railway, subject to suitability of the candidates.
1.07.01 Candidate with partial option will be considered only for the specific categories opted by them since non-option for certain categories would indicate their unwillingness for the same.
11. Therefore, the contention of the applicant that he had secured marks higher than the cut-off prescribed for Category-2 and Category-4 and ought to have been considered for those categories, cannot be accepted. Once the applicant consciously chose not to opt for Categories 2 and 4 at the stage of submission of fresh preferences, he cannot subsequently claim consideration for those categories merely on the basis of higher marks. The respondents were bound to proceed in accordance with the preferences exercised by the candidates and could not have considered the applicant for posts/categories for which he had not expressed willingness.
12. Furthermore, the applicant had secured 84.79531 normalized marks in CBT-2, whereas the cut-off marks for the categories opted by him were admittedly higher, namely 87.27741% for Category-1, 87.25776% for Category-3, 90.17083% for Category-5 and 90.65258% for Category-6. Therefore, even on merits, the applicant failed to qualify for the posts/categories opted by him. The respondents have considered the Page 9 of 10 candidature of the applicant strictly in accordance with the terms of the advertisement, merit position and post preferences exercised by him. The selections are to be made as per the Rules. Rules cannot be relaxed for a particular person as the same is binding upon the candidate as well as employer. The eligibility criteria and conditions mentioned in the advertisement are to be followed strictly and no appointment can be made dehors the rules. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Bedanga Talukdar - PUNIT KUMAR MISHRA Vs-Saifudaullah Khan & Ors. reported in 2011(12) SCC 85 has clearly held that no appointment can be made dehors the Rules. Since the applicant does not come within zone of consideration, rightly his case was not considered for appointment. The judgment relied upon by the learned proxy counsel for the applicant is not applicable in the instant case as in that case, some posts were unfilled, but in the present case, no post is vacant.
13. In view of the above discussions, no relief is permissible to the applicant. Therefore, the instant Original Application is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly, dismissed being devoid of merit.
14. All MAs pending in this O.A. also stand disposed off.
15. No order as to costs.
(Anjani Nandan Sharan) (Justice Rajiv Joshi)
Member (A.) Member (J.)
Pm/-
Page 10 of 10