CAT Allahabad Dismisses Group D Candidates' Appointment Claim After NER Surrendered 500 Trackman Vacancies

Fourteen candidates who cleared all stages of North Eastern Railway's 2007 Group D recruitment failed to secure appointment; CAT Allahabad finds no illegality in vacancy surrender and holds Dinesh Kumar Kashyap inapplicable to the 2007 recruitment cycle.

The Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, on 15 May 2026 dismissed Original Application No. 608 of 2014 filed by fourteen candidates who had participated in North Eastern Railway's Group D recruitment under Advertisement No. NER/RRC/D/2007/1 dated 6 December 2007. The applicants had cleared the physical eligibility test, written examination, medical examination, and document verification, yet were never issued offer letters. The Tribunal, deciding the matter afresh after a remand by the Allahabad High Court, held that the surrender of 500 Trackman vacancies by the Construction Division was lawful, that the assurance contained in the rejection orders of 2013 created no enforceable right to appointment, and that the ratio of the Supreme Court's judgment in Dinesh Kumar Kashyap and others v. South East Central Railway and others, (2019) 12 SCC 798, could not be extended to the 2007 recruitment.

The 2007 Recruitment and What Went Wrong for the Applicants

North Eastern Railway invited applications for Group D posts vide Advertisement No. NER/RRC/D/2007/1 dated 6 December 2007, advertising 4,549 vacancies. The applicants applied and successfully cleared every stage of the selection process. On the basis of the written examination, 5,363 candidates were declared successful against the 4,549 advertised posts. Call letters were issued for document verification.

On 24 August 2012, results for only 3,722 candidates were published, with a notification that results of some candidates were withheld pending an expert report on certain irregularities. A further list of 220 candidates was subsequently published, but the applicants' names did not appear in either list.

The applicants contended that despite being in the select list, as part of the 20 per cent extra candidates called under Railway Board's letter RBE No. 73/2008 dated 17 June 2008, they were not issued offer letters. When they approached the concerned authority, they received an assurance that unfilled vacancies would be filled as and when demand arose from any unit. The final panel list contained names of only 4,049 candidates instead of the 4,549 originally advertised. The respondents had surrendered 500 Trackman vacancies belonging to the Construction Division.

The applicants first approached the Tribunal through OA No. 167 of 2013 (applicants 1 to 10) and OA No. 163 of 2013 (applicants 11 to 14), which were disposed of in February 2013 directing the respondents to decide their representations. The respondents then issued the impugned orders dated 9 May 2013 and 17 June 2013 rejecting the representations while giving a conditional assurance of future consideration. The present OA was filed in 2014 challenging those orders.

The Allahabad High Court's Remand

The Tribunal had earlier disposed of OA No. 608 of 2014 on 3 March 2021, directing the respondents to offer appointment to the applicants. The respondents challenged that order before the Allahabad High Court in Writ A No. 8561 of 2021. The High Court, by its judgment dated 17 May 2024, set aside the Tribunal's order along with orders in several connected original applications and remanded all matters back to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication.

The High Court found that the Tribunal had not recorded any finding on the core question of whether the NER was justified in reducing the advertised posts from 4,549 to 4,049. It also found that the Tribunal had misread the orders dated 9 May 2013 and 17 June 2013 as unconditional assurances, when a full reading of those documents showed the assurance was conditional, tied to future demand from divisions or units and to vacancies arising from candidates who did not join, were medically unfit, or were found guilty of impersonation. The High Court directed the Tribunal to return specific findings on these issues.

Arguments Before the Tribunal on Remand

Counsel for the applicants argued that 526 candidates out of the 3,722 whose results were published in August 2012 did not report for joining, leaving vacancies unfilled. They contended that the respondents had filled 4,087 vacancies against the revised figure of 4,049, without explaining how 38 extra vacancies were filled, pointing to arbitrariness. They argued that the surrender of 500 Trackman vacancies was illegal because no provision existed for such surrender and the authority that returned the list was not competent to do so. They relied on RBE No. 17/2024 to contend that reduction of notified vacancies cannot be done by HR. They also argued that the selection process is complete only when all vacancies are filled and that the respondents could not change terms midway.

On the applicability of Dinesh Kumar Kashyap, counsel argued that the ratio of that Supreme Court judgment, which directed appointment of candidates from the 20 per cent replacement panel of the 2010 recruitment, applied equally to the present applicants. They also relied on the Chhattisgarh High Court's judgment dated 5 December 2025 in Union of India v. Smt R Santoshi and others and the Supreme Court's Constitution Bench judgment dated 7 November 2024 in Tej Prakash Pathak and Others v. Rajasthan High Court and Others.

Counsel for the respondents countered that the applicants were called only as 20 per cent extra candidates under RBE No. 73/2008 and could not be empanelled owing to their lower merit. The 500 Trackman posts belonged to the Construction Division, which returned the list of 341 candidates stating that no posts were available, as those posts had been abolished. The remaining candidates were adjusted in other units. No candidate placed below the applicants' merit was offered appointment. The life of the select list and replacement panel had ended, the entire selection process having concluded by 2014. They relied on the Delhi High Court's judgment in Ashish Kumar v. Union of India and the Supreme Court's judgment in Union of India and Others v. Kali Dass Batish and Another.

How the Tribunal Reasoned

On Dinesh Kumar Kashyap: The Tribunal noted that the Supreme Court's directions in that case were expressly restricted to candidates who had approached the Tribunal, and on clarification, extended only to OAs and writ petitions filed till the date of that judgment. That case concerned the 2010 recruitment. The present matter concerned the 2007 recruitment, a different notification. The Chhattisgarh High Court in R Santoshi had itself clarified that the ratio of Dinesh Kumar Kashyap does not automatically extend to all categories of candidates irrespective of chronology or conduct. The Tribunal held that the judgment could not be applied to the replacement panel of the 2007 recruitment.

On changing advertisement conditions midway: The Tribunal referred to paragraph 14.1 of Advertisement No. NER/RRC/D/2007/1, which expressly stated that “the number of vacancies shown is provisional and is liable to be increased or decreased.” Applying the Constitution Bench's ruling in Tej Prakash Pathak, that eligibility criteria cannot be changed midway unless the advertisement itself permits, the Tribunal held that the advertisement here expressly permitted variation in vacancy numbers. The applicants had applied and participated accepting this condition. No material was placed on record to show that this stipulation was contrary to any extant rule. The Tribunal therefore found no fault in the reduction of vacancies.

On the surrender of 500 Trackman vacancies: The Tribunal examined the advertisement, which showed 500 Trackman posts belonging to the Construction Division (CAO). The Construction Division returned the list of 341 candidates stating that posts were abolished. The Tribunal found that this plea had been taken from the very beginning and was not a fresh reason introduced by affidavit. RBE No. 17/2024, relied upon by the applicants, related to GDCE examinations and was issued on 16 February 2024; it could not be applied to the 2007 open recruitment. The Tribunal found no illegality in the surrender.

On the assurance in the 2013 orders: The Tribunal applied the Supreme Court's ratio in Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India, (1991) 3 SCC 47, that successful candidates do not acquire an indefeasible right to appointment merely because vacancies were notified and they were found fit. The State is under no legal duty to fill all vacancies unless recruitment rules so require, though it must act reasonably. Reading the orders dated 9 May 2013 and 17 June 2013 as a whole, the Tribunal agreed with the High Court that the assurance was conditional, not unconditional. It did not create a mandatory obligation to issue offer letters.

On the life of the select list: The Tribunal noted that the life of the select list had ended and that subsequent recruitments had taken place. Relying on the Delhi High Court's observations in Ashish Kumar, drawing on a line of Supreme Court authority including Shankarsan Dash, Mukul Saikia, and State of Orissa v. Rajkishore Nanda, the Tribunal held that a select list cannot be treated as a reservoir for appointments and that no relief can be granted after the select list has expired.

Outcome

The Tribunal dismissed Original Application No. 608 of 2014. It held that the prayer was not liable to be allowed given that the life of the select list had ended, there was a valid ground for the abolition and surrender of the 500 Construction Division vacancies, no candidate placed below the applicants' merit had been offered appointment, and the ratio of Dinesh Kumar Kashyap was inapplicable to the 2007 recruitment. The effect and operation of the impugned orders dated 9 May 2013 and 17 June 2013 were left intact. All associated miscellaneous applications were disposed of. No costs were awarded.