Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Devendra Kumar Verma vs Secretary Ministry Of Railway on 20 May, 2026
(RESERVED ON 24.04.2026)
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ALLAHABAD BENCH
ALLAHABAD
Pronounced on this the 20th day of May, 2026.
Original Application No.735 of 2022
Hon'ble Mr. Rajnish Kumar Rai, Member (J)
Hon'ble Ms. Manju Pandey, Member (A)
Devendra Kumar Verma aged about 31 years S/o Ashok Kumar Verma
Billage and Post-Goddopur, Near R.T.O. Office, Transport Nagar, District
Ayodhya, PIN 224001.
....Applicant
By Advocate: Shri S K Pandey
VERSUS
1. Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of Railway, Government
of India, new Delhi.
2. Railway Recruitment Board, Allahabad, U.P. through, it's Chairman.
..Respondents
By Advocate: Shri Atul Kumar Shahi
ORDER
By Hon'ble Ms. Manju Pandey, Member (A):-
Heard Shri S K Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Atul Kumar Shahi, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. This Original Application is filed under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, seeking following reliefs:-
8(i) Issue an order or direction, quashing the impugned order dated 29.07.2020 (Annexure A-8 of the Compilation No.I)
(ii) Issue a order or direction in the nature of mandamus/direction directing the respondent no.2, Railway Recruitment Board, Allahabad, U.P. to disclose the reasons for withholding the final result of applicant pertaining to the post of Technician Gr-III Fitter (Mech) C&W/Technician Gr-III (Coach Repair) Mech notified vide Advertisement No.01/2014 and further permit him to remove the same.
(iii) Issue an order or direction in the nature of mandamus/direction commanding the respondent No.2, Railway Recruitment Board, Allahabad, U.P. to recommend the name of applicant for appointment against the aforesaid post.
(iv) Issue any other suitable order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper.
(v) Award the cost of the original application to the applicant. VIVEK Page 1 of 16
RAWAT
3. The Brief facts of the case as stated by the applicant are thatthe applicant, having passed Intermediate examination in the year 2006 and thereafter completed the vocational course of "Mechanic Communication Equipment Maintenance" from the State Council for Vocational Training, Uttar Pradesh in the year 2011, applied pursuant to Advertisement No. 01/2014 dated 18.01.2014 issued by the Railway Recruitment Board, Allahabad for recruitment to various posts of Assistant Loco Pilot and Technician categories. The applicant applied for Technician category posts and was allotted Roll No. 3403938 for the written examination held on 15.06.2014, which he successfully qualified. Consequently, he was called for document verification/interview on 17.03.2017, where all his original documents were duly verified and no objection whatsoever was raised by the authorities regarding his eligibility or qualifications. Thereafter, the final result dated 05.05.2017 was declared wherein the applicant was shown selected against the post of Technician Gr-III Fitter (Mech) C & W/Technician Gr-III (Coach Repair) Mech under Category No. 62, however, his result was withheld for want of certain clarification without disclosing any reason. Despite repeated visits to the office of the respondent Board and continuous monitoring of the official website, the applicant was never informed about the alleged deficiency or clarification required in his case. Subsequently, on 28.07.2017, the respondent Board uploaded a notice clearing several withheld cases under Advertisement No. 01/2014, including five withheld cases under Category No. 62, but the applicant's case remained pending without explanation. The applicant thereafter submitted representations dated 18.06.2019 and also sought information through RTI application dated 30.07.2019 regarding issuance of appointment letter or reasons for VIVEK Page 2 of 16 RAWAT non-issuance thereof, but no satisfactory response was provided. Aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents, the applicant filed the present Original Application on 25.11.2019 before this Hon'ble Tribunal, whereupon the respondents entered appearance on several dates. During pendency of the O.A., the respondents, for the first time through Counter Affidavit served on 08.09.2022, disclosed an alleged order dated 29.07.2020 cancelling the candidature of the applicant on the ground of ineligibility, though no such order had ever been communicated or uploaded on the official website and no proof of its service upon the applicant was produced. The applicant contends that after admission of the O.A. and appearance of the respondents before the Tribunal, the respondents were barred under Section 19(4) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 from passing any order affecting the subject matter of the case, rendering the alleged cancellation order dated 29.07.2020 wholly without jurisdiction, arbitrary and illegal. The applicant further submits that there was no column in the application form requiring disclosure of ITI duration, that several similarly situated candidates possessing one-year ITI qualification were appointed under various categories pursuant to the same recruitment, and that more than 100 posts under Category No. 62 are still lying vacant. It is also submitted that out of 26 withheld candidates under Category No. 62, five candidates have already been cleared and appointed, while the applicant, despite being found eligible at every stage including written examination and document verification, has been denied appointment without assigning any lawful reason. The applicant further states that even assuming he is not suitable for Category No. 62, he is willing to join against any suitable post notified under Advertisement No. 01/2014, including Assistant Loco Pilot, Pipe Fitter, Pump Operator, VIVEK Page 3 of 16 RAWAT Welder or other Technician posts, and cannot be made to suffer due to any error committed by the respondents in categorization of his candidature. Hence, the continued withholding and subsequent cancellation of the applicant's candidature is arbitrary, discriminatory, violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and liable to be set aside. Hence this Original Application.
4. On the other hand, the Respondents have filed counter affidavit, wherein it is stated that the Railway Recruitment Board, Allahabad issued Centralized Employment Notice No. 01/2014 dated 18.01.2014 for recruitment to the posts of Assistant Loco Pilot and various categories of Technicians including Technician Grade-III under Category No. 62, for which the prescribed qualification was Matriculation along with Course Completed Act Apprentice/ITI approved by NCVT/SCVT in the trade of Fitter/Fitter General. It was specifically provided in the employment notice that candidates must ensure fulfillment of all eligibility conditions including requisite educational and technical qualifications as on the date of submission of application. The applicant, Devendra Kumar Verma, applied under the said notification possessing a one-year certificate course in the trade of "Mechanic Communication Equipment Maintenance" from SCVT and was provisionally permitted to appear in the written examination and subsequently called for document verification on the basis of his merit position. However, at the stage of document verification, it was noticed that the applicant possessed qualification in the trade "Mechanic Communication Equipment Maintenance," which belongs to the electronic sector and is of one-year duration, whereas the notified qualification for Category No. 62 required ITI in Fitter/Fitter General VIVEK Page 4 of 16 RAWAT trade of two-year duration. Consequently, the applicant's result was withheld for clarification regarding ITI duration and equivalence of trade from the Directorate General of Training (DGET), and such withheld status along with reasons thereof was uploaded on the official website of RRB Allahabad on 05.05.2017/05.06.2017. According to the respondents, despite publication of the withheld status, the applicant failed to submit any clarification or supporting document before the Board. Upon verification from the DGET website, it was found that the applicant's trade was neither equivalent to nor interchangeable with ITI Fitter/Fitter General trade prescribed under the employment notification. Accordingly, the candidature of the applicant for the post of Technician Grade-III under Category No. 62 was cancelled vide letter No.RRBA/Con/ALP-Tech/CEN-01/2014 dated 29.07.2020. The respondents further contended that the applicant was only provisionally allowed to participate in the selection process, which included written examination and document verification as intermediate stages, and mere participation or provisional selection did not confer any vested right of appointment unless all eligibility conditions prescribed in the employment notice were fulfilled. It was also asserted that objections regarding the applicant's educational qualification were raised by the verification officer at the time of document verification itself and the applicant was informed accordingly. The respondents denied all allegations of arbitrariness, illegality or violation of constitutional rights and further stated that the Original Application was barred by limitation and devoid of merit, as the applicant did not possess the requisite qualification prescribed for the advertised post. Hence, according to the respondents, the action of withholding and subsequently cancelling the candidature of the applicant was lawful, justified and strictly in VIVEK Page 5 of 16 RAWAT accordance with the terms and conditions of the recruitment notification and applicable rules, therefore the Original Application deserves to be dismissed with costs.
5. In reply, rejoinder Affidavit filed by the applicant are that the averments made by the respondents in the Counter Affidavit regarding ineligibility of the applicant on the ground that he possessed a one-year ITI certificate in the trade of "Mechanic Communication Equipment Maintenance" are wholly misconceived, arbitrary and contrary to the recruitment rules and prevailing practice adopted by the Railways across the country. The applicant submits that Centralized Employment Notice No. 01/2014 nowhere prescribed that only candidates possessing two-year ITI certificates were eligible for appointment to the posts of ALP/Technician, nor was there any exclusion of one-year ITI diploma holders approved by NCVT/SCVT. The applicant further states that he possessed a valid SCVT approved certificate in "Mechanic Communication Equipment Maintenance," was issued admit card, appeared in the written examination, qualified the same on merit, and thereafter was called for counselling/document verification on 17.03.2017 after scrutiny of his application and educational documents by the respondents themselves. The applicant specifically denied the allegation that any objection regarding his qualification was raised at the time of verification and asserted that no reason for withholding his candidature was ever uploaded on the RRB website or communicated to him. It is further submitted that the alleged cancellation order dated 29.07.2020 was never served upon him, no opportunity of hearing or explanation was granted before passing the said order, and no proof of service of such order has been produced by VIVEK Page 6 of 16 RAWAT the respondents. The applicant further contended that the Original Application had already been filed on 25.11.2019 and the matter was sub-judice before the Hon'ble Tribunal; therefore, under Section 19(4) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the respondents were barred from passing any adverse order affecting the subject matter of the pending proceedings, rendering the alleged cancellation order dated 29.07.2020 non-est, illegal and without jurisdiction. The applicant also pointed out that the respondents failed to place on record any letter allegedly sent to the Directorate General of Training (DGET) seeking clarification or any reply received therefrom regarding equivalence of the applicant's trade. In support of his claim, the applicant placed reliance upon several instances of appointments made by the Railways in favour of candidates possessing one-year ITI qualifications, including one Shri Kuldeep, who was appointed as Assistant Loco Pilot pursuant to CEN-01/2010 on the basis of a one-year ITI qualification in Diesel Mechanic trade, and further stated that under Notification No. 01/2018 several candidates possessing one-year ITI diplomas were appointed to posts such as Pipe Fitter, Pump Operator, Welder and Plumber. The applicant further submitted that even under the curriculum issued by the Directorate General of Training, trades such as Welder and Plumber are recognized one-year vocational courses, thereby demonstrating that one-year ITI qualifications are accepted by the Railways for technical posts. It was also asserted that the respondents themselves treated the applicant as eligible by placing him under Category No. 62, permitting him to participate in all stages of selection and withholding his result only after declaration of final result dated 05.05.2017, wherein his Roll No. 3403938 appeared amongst 26 withheld candidates, out of whom five candidates were subsequently VIVEK Page 7 of 16 RAWAT cleared on 28.07.2017 and appointed, allegedly on the basis of similar one-year ITI qualifications. The applicant further submitted that despite filing several RTI applications dated 09.07.2022 and 26.09.2022, first appeal dated 24.08.2022 and second appeal dated 10.10.2022 before the Central Information Commission seeking information regarding the qualifications and clarifications submitted by similarly situated candidates, the respondents failed to furnish the relevant records. The applicant therefore prayed that the original selection records, correspondence with DGET and records relating to similarly situated candidates be summoned by the Tribunal. The applicant denied all allegations made in the Counter Affidavit regarding suppression of facts, limitation and lack of eligibility, and reiterated that the action of the respondents in withholding and subsequently cancelling his candidature without notice, hearing or communication is arbitrary, discriminatory, violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and liable to be set aside, with a direction to appoint the applicant to the post of ALP/Technician with all consequential benefits including seniority and fixation of pay.
6. Supplementary counter affidavit has been filed by respondent, wherein it has specifically been mentioned that pursuant to CEN No. 01/2014 issued by Railway Recruitment Board, candidates possessing one year ITI in Diesel Mechanic Trade were eligible only for the post of Assistant Loco Pilot (ALP) and not for Technician Grade-III posts requiring ITI in Fitter/Fitter General Trade. The applicant, Sh. Devendra Kumar Verma, participated in the recruitment process and on the basis of merit in the written examination was provisionally called for Document Verification for the post of Technician Grade-III, Post Code- VIVEK Page 8 of 16 RAWAT 62 (NCR). During document verification, the applicant submitted an SCVT certificate of one year vocational training in "Mechanic Communication Equipment Maintenance" Trade, whereas the notified minimum educational qualification under CEN No. 01/2014 was Matriculation plus ITI/Act Apprenticeship in Fitter/Fitter General Trade approved by NCVT/SCVT. Since the trade submitted by the applicant belonged to Electronic Sector and was of one year duration, whereas Fitter/Fitter General Trade belongs to Capital Goods & Manufacturing Sector and is of two years duration as per DGET letter dated 27.07.1988 and DGET website, clarification regarding equivalency was sought and consequently the applicant's result was withheld. The withheld status along with reasons thereof was uploaded on the RRB website on 05.06.2017 vide notice dated 30.05.2017, whereby all such candidates including the applicant were directed to submit requisite clarification/documents latest by 30.06.2017, failing which candidature was liable to be cancelled. The applicant failed to furnish any clarification/document within stipulated time. Thereafter, on account of non-equivalency of "Mechanic Communication Equipment Maintenance" Trade with "Fitter/Fitter General" Trade, the candidature of the applicant for Technician post under CEN No. 01/2014 was cancelled vide office letter dated 29.07.2020, which was duly dispatched through registered post at the applicant's mailing address. Subsequently, information sought by the applicant under RTI application dated 09.07.2022 was duly furnished vide office letter dated 12.08.2022. It is further submitted that the recruitment process was conducted strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions of the CEN, wherein candidature was provisional at every stage and the burden to establish eligibility rested solely upon the candidate. Hence, VIVEK Page 9 of 16 RAWAT the applicant, not possessing the prescribed qualification for the Technician post, is not entitled to any relief and the Original Application being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed with costs.
7. In reply, the applicant has filed the supplementary rejoinder affidavit and stated that pursuant to CEN No. 01/2014 issued by the Railway Recruitment Board for recruitment to the posts of ALP/Technician, the applicant possessing SCVT approved one year ITI certificate in "Mechanic Communication Equipment Maintenance"
Trade applied against Category No. 62 and after due scrutiny of his application form and educational documents by the respondents, admit card was issued to him for written examination, wherein he qualified and was thereafter called for counselling/document verification on 17.03.2017. During the entire selection process no objection whatsoever was raised regarding the applicant's educational qualification and the applicant was declared successful provisionally. The respondents subsequently alleged that the applicant's one year ITI Trade was not equivalent to "Fitter/Fitter General" and further claimed that the applicant's result was withheld and uploaded on the RRB website on 05.06.2017 vide notice dated 30.05.2017 directing submission of clarification by 30.06.2017, however no such information or communication was ever served upon or made available to the applicant and no proof of service or relevant DGET clarification has been placed on record by the respondents. The applicant submits that similarly situated candidates possessing one year ITI certificates, including Shri Kuldeep appointed as Assistant Loco Pilot under Eastern Railway pursuant to CEN-01/2010, were granted appointment on the basis of one year ITI qualification, thereby establishing that one year VIVEK Page 10 of 16 RAWAT ITI qualification was treated as valid by the Railway Administration. It is further submitted that under Notification No. 01/2014 there was no stipulation that only two year ITI holders were eligible for appointment and no corrigendum was ever issued modifying the eligibility conditions during the selection process. The applicant's trade "Mechanic Communication Equipment Maintenance" was originally treated under mechanical stream and only after revision in 2015 was brought under electronics sector with enhanced duration of two years, whereas the applicant's candidature is governed by the rules prevailing on the date of issuance of notification in 2014. The applicant further submits that the present Original Application was filed on 25/26.11.2019 and during pendency of the matter the respondents illegally cancelled his candidature vide letter dated 29.07.2020 without affording any opportunity of hearing and without serving the said order upon the applicant, rendering the action arbitrary, illegal and violative of Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. Thereafter, the applicant sought information under RTI application dated 09.07.2022, however proper information was not supplied, which compelled the applicant to file Second Appeal before the Chief Information Commission, whereupon the CIC vide order dated 17.07.2023 in Appeal No. CIC/MORLY/A/2022/152257-UM directed the respondents to furnish correct and updated information within 21 days. The applicant further submits that several candidates possessing one year ITI qualifications have been appointed under different Technician categories including Pipe Fitter, Pump Operator, Welder and ALP under various Railway notifications and the respondents have failed to specifically deny such pleadings. The applicant has already furnished undertaking expressing willingness to join any suitable post anywhere in India including VIVEK Page 11 of 16 RAWAT ALP/Technician/Welder/Plumber/Pump Operator for which he is found eligible. Hence, the impugned cancellation of candidature is discriminatory, contrary to the terms of CEN No. 01/2014, violative of principles of natural justice and liable to be quashed, while the present Original Application deserves to be allowed with appropriate directions for appointment of the applicant against any suitable post.
8. Thereafter, the respondents have also filed a second supplementary counter affidavit, wherein it has been mentioned that pursuant to CEN No. 01/2014 issued by Railway Recruitment Board for recruitment to the post of Technician Grade-III, Post Code-62 (NCR), the prescribed minimum educational qualification was Matriculation plus Course Completed Act Apprenticeship/ITI approved by NCVT/SCVT in the trade of Fitter/Fitter General. The applicant, Sh. Devendra Kumar Verma, participated in the recruitment process and on the basis of merit in written examination was provisionally called for Document Verification. During document verification, the applicant submitted SCVT certificate of one year vocational course in "Mechanic Communication Equipment Maintenance" Trade, which was not equivalent to ITI Fitter/Fitter General Trade as prescribed under CEN No. 01/2014. Consequently, the result of the applicant was withheld for clarification regarding equivalency and duration of the trade and the withheld status along with reasons thereof was uploaded on the RRB website on 05.06.2017 vide notice dated 30.05.2017, wherein 90 candidates including the applicant were advised to submit requisite clarification/documents latest by 30.06.2017 failing which candidature was liable to be cancelled. The applicant failed to furnish any clarification or document within the stipulated period. As per DGET VIVEK Page 12 of 16 RAWAT letter No. DGET-7(2/87-CD) dated 27.07.1988 and DGET website, ITI Fitter/Fitter General is a two year course under Capital Goods & Manufacturing Sector, whereas "Mechanic Communication Equipment Maintenance" is a one year course belonging to Electronic Sector and therefore both trades are entirely different and non-equivalent. Accordingly, due to non-equivalency of the applicant's trade with the prescribed qualification, his candidature for the post of Technician under CEN No. 01/2014 was cancelled vide office letter dated 29.07.2020 and the same was duly dispatched to the applicant through registered post, proof whereof has already been annexed as SCA-4. Thereafter, the applicant filed Original Application before this Hon'ble Tribunal, which was admitted on 10.08.2022, much after cancellation of candidature. During pendency of the Original Application, the applicant filed Amendment Application No. 4692/2024 seeking incorporation of additional pleadings in the Original Application, which was allowed by this Hon'ble Tribunal vide order dated 29.11.2024, granting liberty to the respondents to file counter affidavit to the amended paragraphs. In compliance thereof, the respondents submit that the recruitment process was conducted strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions of CEN No. 01/2014, wherein candidature was provisional at every stage and liable to cancellation in case of non-fulfilment of eligibility conditions, the burden of proving eligibility being solely upon the candidate. It is further submitted that information sought by the applicant under RTI application dated 09.07.2022 was duly furnished vide office letter dated 12.08.2022 and copies thereof have already been annexed on record. Hence, the action of the respondents is fair, legal, justified and in accordance with the applicable recruitment rules VIVEK Page 13 of 16 RAWAT and instructions, and therefore the Original Application being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed with costs.
9. We have heard the learned counsels of both the sides and have perused the documents submitted by them in their respective pleadings.
10. The applicant applied against Advertisement No. 01/2014 dated 18.01.2014 issued by the Railway Recruitment Board, Allahabad for recruitment to various posts of Assistant Loco Pilot and Technician categories. The applicant possessing SCVT approved one year ITI certificate in "Mechanic Communication Equipment Maintenance"
Trade applied against Category No. 62 and after due scrutiny of his application form and educational documents by the respondents, admit card was issued to him for written examination, wherein he qualified and was thereafter called for counselling/document verification on 17.03.2017. The prescribed minimum educational qualification was Matriculation plus Course Completed Act Apprenticeship/ITI approved by NCVT/SCVT in the trade of Fitter/Fitter General. During document verification, the applicant submitted SCVT certificate of one year vocational course in "Mechanic Communication Equipment Maintenance" Trade, which was not equivalent to ITI Fitter/Fitter General Trade as prescribed under CEN No. 01/2014.As per DGET letter No. DGET-7(2/87-CD) dated 27.07.1988 and DGET website, ITI Fitter/Fitter General is a two year course under Capital Goods & Manufacturing Sector, whereas "Mechanic Communication Equipment Maintenance" is a one year course belonging to Electronic Sector and therefore both trades are entirely different and non-equivalent. VIVEK Page 14 of 16 RAWAT
11. The Applicant was provisionally permitted to appear in the written examination and subsequently called for document verification on the basis of his merit position. When on document verification, his documents were not found correct for the Trade he had applied for, his result was withheld. The Applicant has, in his favour, relied upon the judgment in Rajendra Singh Nayal vs. UOI (OA No.331/00037 of 2014). In the case referred, the provisional appointment given has been cancelled. In the present case, no appointment letter has been issued. Document verification is a part of the appointment process.
While the applicant qualified the written test, at the time of document verification, as per his documents, he was not found eligible for the Trade of Fitter as his qualification related to the IT sector and therefore his result was withheld and subsequently his candidature was cancelled under the Category No 62. In the employment notification under question i.e CEN No.01/2014, at S.No.4 which is Stages of exam, it has been clearly mentioned that for technicians - Single stage written examination followed by verification of original documents. So verification of documents is very much a part of the appointment process and final appointment is done only after both the stages i.e., written examination and document verification is carried out. In the present case, no appointment order has been issued as during document verification, the documents submitted have not been found relevant to the category for which the applicant has applied.
12. The applicant in the present OA has asked for a direction to the Respondent no.2, Railway Recruitment Board, Allahabad, U.P. to disclose the reasons for withholding the final result of applicant pertaining to the post of Technician Gr-III Fitter (Mech) VIVEK Page 15 of 16 RAWAT C&W/Technician Gr-III (Coach Repair) Mech notified vide Advertisement No.01/2014 and further permit him to remove the same. It is seen that the Respondents have vide their letter dt 29.07.2020 placed as CA-1 of the Counter affidavit , already given a reply to the applicant giving reasons for cancellation of his candidature. Moreover, results of 90 candidates including the applicant, were withheld giving the reasons and the candidates were asked to submit the required clarification else the candidature would be cancelled. The Applicant did not submit any clarification and so his candidature was cancelled and he was informed of the same. The category for which the applicant had applied was that of fitter where the requirement was a course in the trade of fitter/fitter general. However, the applicant has qualification in the trade of "Mechanic Communication Equipment Maintenance" which is clearly of the Electronic/Communication/IT side and is quite distinct and different from the trade of fitter/fitter general required.
13. In view of the above, there seems to be no merit in the case. Reply regarding reasons for cancellation has already been given by the Respondents.
14. The OA is accordingly dismissed. Pending MAs', if any, are also dismissed.
15. No order as to costs.
(Ms. Manju Pandey) (Mr. Rajnish Kumar Rai)
Member (A) Member (J)
vivek/
VIVEK Page 16 of 16
RAWAT