Central Administrative Tribunal - Jabalpur
Sunil Kumar Chaudhary vs Railway Board on 10 October, 2025
1 O.A.No. 200/001181/2022
Reserved
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
JABALPUR BENCH
JABALPUR
Original Application No.200/01181/2022
Jabalpur, this Friday, the 10th day of October, 2025
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AKHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE SMT MALLIKA ARYA, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
1. Sunil Kumar Chaudhary, So Shri Mahangulal Chaudhari, aged about -
23 years, R/o Ward No. 15, Kunde Kariyadand, Kiranpur, District
Balaghat (M.P)
2. Siyaram Gurjar S/o Shri Jagdish Narayan, aged about - 30 years, r/o
village dohrata ki Dhani, Jamwaramgarh Jamwa Ramgarh, Jaipur
Rajasthan
3. Nitesh kirar S/o Shri purushotam kirar, aged about - 30 years, residence
of village- bamori post, Bamor, district Guna, Madhya Pradesh
4. Jaypal Yadav S/o Shri Hari Ram, aged about - 28 years, residence of
ward number 10 Ghero ki Dhani Dada Fatehpur pura, district Jhunjhunu,
Rajasthan
5. Suresh Gurjar S/o Shri Ramnath Gurjar, aged about - 27 years, R/o
village Shamgarh Garoth, ward number 13 near Shiv Mandir Gurjar
mohalla district Mandsaur, Madhya Pradesh.
Page 1 of 12
VISHAL 2025.10.28
17:51:09
KUSHWAH+05'30'
2 O.A.No. 200/001181/2022
Reserved
6. Narendra Singh S/o Shri Gyan singh, aged about - 31 years, R/o, village
Mangroli Jat, Teh. Kiraoli District Agra, Uttar Pradesh
7. Amit Kumar S/o Shri Sugreev, aged about 32 years, R/o Narjita, P.o. -
Sikhula district Banda, Uttar Pradesh.
8. Om Prakash Bairwa, S/o Bhagwan Sahay Bairwa, aged about - 27
years, R/o village devgaon Kanha Bairwa ki Dhani post devgaon district
Jaipur, Rajasthan.
9. Moinul Haq S/o Shri Shahidul Hag, aged about 33 years, R/o house
number 343 e Street off Narayan Pan wale Bajaj Khana Kota City Kota,
Rajasthan.
10. Prashant BhagatS/o Shri E Chandra Bhagat, Aged about 25 years, R/o
village 1 lalgutwa, Tehsil Gutua, Ranchi, Jharkhand
11. Krishna Nandan Kumar S/o Shri Kishori Mahato, aged about 25 years,
R/o Shiv Kund dharahara, Dist. Munger, Bihar.
12. Sumit Kumar Jha, S/O shri Ashrafi Jha, aged about 32 years, R/o
Ward Number 12 village Birpur, PO Birpur District Madhuban, Bihar.
13. Neeraj Kumar S/o Shri girendra Singh, aged about 25 Years, R/o
village- khamora, Rajapur, Rajpur District Siwan, Bihar.
Page 2 of 12
VISHAL 2025.10.28
17:51:09
KUSHWAH+05'30'
3 O.A.No. 200/001181/2022
Reserved
-Applicants
(By Advocate - Shri Dharmanshu Singh)
Versus
1. Chairman of Railway Board, 256-A, Rail Bhavan, Raisina Road, New
Delhi -110001
2. Railway Recruitment Board, through it's Chairman O/o,East Railway
Colony Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, 462010
3. Railway Recruitment Cell, through it's Chairman 0/o, 290 Railway
Station Road, South Civil Lines, Madhya Pradesh, 482001
4. UNION OF INDIA, through its General Manager, WCR 35, Indira
Market South Civil Lines, Jabalpur Madhya Pradesh 482001
- Respondents
(By Advocate - Shri N K Mishra)
ORDER
By Mallika Arya, AM:
The applicants by way of this O.A. are requesting for directions to Respondents nos. 2 & 3 to appoint them in light of the instructions contained in letter dated 22.10.2021 and 15.03.2022 (Annexure A/3 & Annexure A/4).
2. Briefly stating, the facts of the case are that an advertisement for recruitment of level 1 Post (Group D), CEN 02/2018, was issued by Page 3 of 12 VISHAL 2025.10.28 17:51:09 KUSHWAH+05'30' 4 O.A.No. 200/001181/2022 Reserved Respondent no. 2 and examination for level-1, CBT was conducted on 31.10.2018. The names of the candidates who qualified the CBT were sent by Respondent no. 2 to Respondent no. 3 and respondent no. 3 conducted the Physical Efficiency Test on 28.03.2019. The applicants successfully qualified both the tests but as per cut of list issued by the respondents, their names were found in the replacement panel (waiting list). The Railway Board vide letter dated 12.10.2021 and 22.10.2021 had clearly and specifically given directions to all the Chairpersons of the RRBs that if a post falls vacant, non-joining/resignation/death of an applicant and a new panel is not available then it should be filled immediately from the reserved list. Thereafter in compliance of the aforesaid directions, the RRB filled up the vacancies through replacement panel and appointed the candidates who had qualified the Physical Examination Test (Annexure A/5). The applicants are agitating the appointment by Respondent no. 2 to the post of Assistant Loco Pilot in violation of the aforesaid instructions of the Railway Board (Respondent no. 1). The applicants submitted their representation before the respondent nos. 2 & 3 with a request that appointment be made in light of the Railway Board's instructions as per letter dated 12.10.2021 and 15.03.2022. However, the Respondent nos. 2 & 3 have not responded to the above representation of the applicants Page 4 of 12 VISHAL 2025.10.28 17:51:09 KUSHWAH+05'30' 5 O.A.No. 200/001181/2022 Reserved (Annexure A/7). Since the other RRBs have complied with the aforesaid instructions, it is only Respondent no. 2 & 3 who have not complied with the said instructions. Therefore, the applicants are praying that directions be issued to the respondent no 2 & 3, to strictly comply with the letters dated 22.10.2021 and 15.03.2022.
3. The respondents on the other hand have contended that Central Employment Notification No. 02/2018 was issued by Nodal RRB Bengaluru, as a result of which the CBT was held at RRB, Bhopal. The result has been declared by RRB Bhopal and Physical Eligibility Test was held from 25.03.2019 to 30.03.2019. The eligible candidates were thereafter called for document and candidature verification and further for medical examination. Under the aforesaid notification, the replacement panel/waiting list has not been issued. The aforesaid letters of the Railway Board namely 12.10.2021 and 22.10.2021 do not carry any instructions for creation of a replacement panel for recruitment through Railway Recruitment Cell. The prayer of the applicants is for replacement panel in CEN 02/2018 wherein there are no instructions which have been issued for replacement panel relating to CEN No. 02/2018. CEN 02/2018 was issued prior to Railway Board's letter dated 15.03.2022 and therefore this letter cannot be applied retrospectively. The said recruitment has been Page 5 of 12 VISHAL 2025.10.28 17:51:09 KUSHWAH+05'30' 6 O.A.No. 200/001181/2022 Reserved done under Railway Board's letter No.E(NG)-II/2008/RR-1/33 dated 01.10.2014 wherein no replacement panel was issued. The respondents have relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vallampati Sathish Babu Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. of the year 2022. The relevant para of the said judgment reads as follows:
"Appellant cannot claim appointment on the unfilled vacancy being next below the candidate in the merit list."
A copy of judgment in support of this averment is enclosed as Annexure R/2.
Further, they have relied on Para 19.2 of CEN 02/2018 wherein it has been mentioned that the decision of the Railway Recruitment Board in all matters relating to eligibility, acceptance or rejection of online applications, issue of free rail passes, penal action for false information, modification of vacancies, mode of selection, conduct of CBT, allotment of examination centers, selection, allotment of posts to selected candidates etc., will be final and binding on the candidates and no enquiry or correspondence will be entertained by the RRBs in this regard (Annexure R/4). Therefore the respondents have submitted that the applicants are not entitled for any relief and the OA merits to be dismissed. Page 6 of 12 VISHAL 2025.10.28 17:51:09 KUSHWAH+05'30' 7 O.A.No. 200/001181/2022 Reserved
4. We have considered the matter, heard the counsels for the parties, perused the documents and the case laws relied upon by both the counsels.
5. The applicants' counsel has given a compendium of judgments placing reliance on them in support of their case.
(i) In the case of Manoj Manu and Another vs Union of India and Others, (2013) 12 SCC 171, the Hon'ble Supreme Court directed UPSC to forward the names of next three candidates to DOP&T for appointment. The Apex Court has relied on it's earlier judgment in the case of Sandeep Singh vs. State of Haryana in holding that applicants case ought to have been considered when some of the candidates for reasons of non appointment come within range of selection.
(ii) The case of Union of India vs Munshi Ram, (Civil Appeal No. 2811 of 2022) has no bearing on the facts of the present case, since it deals with Commission Vendors and office bearers working in the Northern Railways who are entitled for 50% of their service rendered prior to the regularization to be counted for pensionary benefits.
(iii) In the case of Bir Bajrang Kumar vs. State of Bihar (AIR 1987 SC 1345), the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the state cannot Page 7 of 12 VISHAL 2025.10.28 17:51:09 KUSHWAH+05'30' 8 O.A.No. 200/001181/2022 Reserved treat employees similarly situated differently. It cannot implement the order in relation to one and refuse to do so in relation to other.
(iv) As far as case of R S Mittal Vs. Union of India (1995 Supp. (2) SCC 230) is concerned, the Apex Court has observed that the person on select panel has no vested right to be appointed. However, he has right to be considered for appointment. The appointing authority cannot ignore the select panel or decline to make the appointment on it's whims. There has to be a justifiable reason to decline to appoint a person who is on the select panel.
(v) In the case of Surinder Singh and Others vs State of Punjab and Another, [(1997) 8 SCC 488], the Apex Court has taken a view that before any advertisement is issued, it is incumbent upon the authorities to take into account the existing and the anticipated vacancies. The Supreme Court has upheld the order of the High Court setting aside the appointment of teachers over and above the advertised vacancies.
(vi) In the case of Prince Gupta vs Union of India, in O.A./1116/2020, the CAT, Principal Bench, New Delhi, in para 11 of their order have observed as follows:
Page 8 of 12
VISHAL 2025.10.28 17:51:09 KUSHWAH+05'30' 9 O.A.No. 200/001181/2022 Reserved "11. As is evident from the additional affidavit filed by the respondents, the sole reason for non-operation of the replacement panel for the post of ASM was due to irresponsible and negligence on the part of the respondents and its officers/officials in dealing with matters, which has caused grave impact on career of the applicant. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that since the respondents were liable for timely operation of the replacement panel, the applicant cannot be penalized or made to suffer due to the mistake wholly attributable to them and, hence, the applicant is entitled for the relief claimed in the O.A.."
(vii) Further, in the case of Chander Prakash Saini and Others vs. Union of India, (O.A. NO. 4582/2018), the Principal Bench of this Tribunal has held that the applicants were engaged as contractors de hors the recruitment rules in violation of constitutional scheme and procedure of Articles 14 & 16 and 309 of the Constitution of India and applicants do not have vested legal right to seek regularization of their services. The Principal Bench dismissed the Original Application holding that the applicants have no legal right seeking regularization of their services and no protection can be given.
6. The respondents have maintained their stand that there were no instructions for creation of a replacement panel concerning recruitments to be conducted at the material time by RRBs. The RRBs only conducted the CBT and subsequent processes such as PET, Document and Candidature Page 9 of 12 VISHAL 2025.10.28 17:51:09 KUSHWAH+05'30' 10 O.A.No. 200/001181/2022 Reserved Verification, Medical Examination and final empanelment were carried out by the RRC. The impugned notification for recruitment was issued in the year 2018 whereas the applicants are relying on the Railway Board's letter dated 15.03.2022 (RBE 30/2022) which prescribes for creation of replacement panel in recruitment by RRC. Therefore, there can be no retrospective application of the RRB 30/2022 (Annexure A/4). The entire process of selection has been completed in terms of Railway Board's letter No. E(NG)-II/2008/RR-I/33 dated 10.01.2014 (Annexure R/1).
7. The respondents in support of their contention have relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex court in SLP (C) No. 42220/2022 in the case of Yogesh Devidas Patil & Ors vs. Union of India and Ors, wherein para 23, the Hon'ble Court has observed as follows:
"23. The respondents have submitted a list of eight applicants who have been given appointment during the pendency of the OAs after clearing their document verification. This testifies to the transparency and the absence of the arbitrariness in the selection process. This also proves that there is no bias against the applicants in the present cases. Coming back to the questions put by us in para 7 of this order we have established through the discussions in the preceding paragraphs that merely because the applicants were called for medical examination it does not entitle them for final selection/appointment....." Page 10 of 12
VISHAL 2025.10.28 17:51:09 KUSHWAH+05'30' 11 O.A.No. 200/001181/2022 Reserved The Hon'ble Apex Court has relied on their earlier judgment in the case of All India SC ST Employees Association vs. A Arthur Jeen, (2001) 6 SCC 380, wherein it has been held as follows:
"10. Merely because the names of the candidates were included in the panel indicating their provisional selection, they did not acquire any indefeasible right for appointment even against the existing vacancies and the State is under no legal duty to fill up all or any of the vacancies as laid down by the Constitution Bench of this Court, after referring to earlier cases in Shankarsan Das Vs. Union of India (supra)."
8. Therefore, the position is very clear that at the time when the recruitment process was undertaken the Railway Recruitment Cells they were not required to prepare any replacement panel. Further, the applicants' prayer seeking a retrospective application of the notification dated 15.03.2022 is misplaced.
9. We also observe that the catena of judgments relied upon by applicant's counsel has no relevance to the facts of present case since most of these relate to a situation where replacement panel or a waiting list was prepared. However, in this case no replacement panel has been prepared as per the consistent stand of the respondents. Page 11 of 12 VISHAL 2025.10.28 17:51:09 KUSHWAH+05'30' 12 O.A.No. 200/001181/2022 Reserved
10. Hence in light of the observations made in pre-pages and the judgment of Hon'ble Apex court in SLP (C) No. 42220/2022 in the case of Yogesh Devidas Patil & Ors vs. Union of India and Ors, we find that there is no merit in the Original Application and the same is dismissed. No costs.
(MallikaArya) (Akhil Kumar Srivastava)
Administrative Member Judicial Member
VK/-
Page 12 of 12
VISHAL 2025.10.28
17:51:09
KUSHWAH+05'30'