CAT Allahabad Dismisses Group D Replacement Panel Claims From 2007 North Eastern Railway Recruitment

Thirteen candidates on the 20% extra replacement panel of a 2007 North Eastern Railway Group D recruitment sought appointment against allegedly vacant posts; CAT Allahabad dismissed the original application, holding the select list had expired and the ratio of Dinesh Kumar Kashyap did not extend to the 2007 recruitment.

The Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, on 15 May 2026 dismissed Original Application No. 128 of 2014 filed by thirteen candidates who had cleared the physical eligibility test, written examination, and document verification stages of North Eastern Railway's Group D recruitment advertised on 6 December 2007. The applicants, placed in the 20% extra replacement panel, contended that hundreds of posts remained vacant and that the Railways had unlawfully surrendered 500 Trackman vacancies belonging to the Construction Division mid-process. The Tribunal, constituted by Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (Judicial), and Shri Mohan Pyare, Member (Administrative), found the claims unsustainable: the select list had run its course, no candidate ranked below the applicants had been appointed, and the Supreme Court's directions in Dinesh Kumar Kashyap and Others v. South East Central Railway and Others, (2019) 12 SCC 798, were confined to the 2010 recruitment and could not be transplanted to a different recruitment year.

The 2007 Recruitment and the Replacement Panel

North Eastern Railway issued Advertisement No. NER/RRC/D/2007/1 on 6 December 2007 inviting applications for Group D posts. A total of 4,549 vacancies were advertised. The applicants participated in all stages, physical eligibility test, written examination, medical examination, and document verification. On the basis of the written examination, 5,363 candidates were declared successful against the 4,549 advertised posts. A result for 3,722 candidates was published on 24 August 2012, with a notification that results of some candidates were withheld pending an expert report.

The applicants found themselves in the replacement panel, constituted from the 20% extra candidates called under Railway Board's letter dated 17 June 2008. No offer of appointment was ever issued to them. The Railways ultimately appointed 4,087 candidates. The applicants argued that 500 Trackman vacancies belonging to the Construction Division had been surrendered without authority, that 593 posts remained vacant as disclosed through RTI responses, and that the respondents had given assurances, through orders dated 9 May 2013 and 17 June 2013, that their cases would be considered as and when demand arose from any unit.

An earlier OA filed by similarly situated candidates (OA No. 831 of 2013) had been dismissed by the Tribunal on the ground that inclusion in a select list does not guarantee appointment when no vacancies exist. The applicants challenged that order before the Allahabad High Court. By judgment dated 17 May 2024 in Writ A No. 8561 of 2021 (Union of India and 4 Others v. Pappu Kumar and 13 Others), the High Court set aside the Tribunal's earlier orders and remanded the matters for fresh decision, observing that the Tribunal had not recorded any finding on the legality of the Railways' decision to reduce the advertised posts.

What Each Side Argued

Shri Vinod Kumar, appearing for the applicants, pressed three principal contentions. First, the Railways had surrendered 500 Trackman vacancies without competent authority approval, and no order of the competent authority had been placed on record. Second, the respondents had changed the terms and conditions of the advertisement midway through the selection process, which is impermissible in law. Third, the ratio of Dinesh Kumar Kashyap, where the Supreme Court directed appointment of replacement-panel candidates of the 2010 recruitment, applied with equal force to the 2007 recruitment. Counsel also relied on the Chhattisgarh High Court's judgment dated 5 December 2025 in WP No. 6291 of 2024 (Union of India v. Smt R Santoshi and Others) and the Constitution Bench decision in Tej Prakash Pathak and Others v. Rajasthan High Court and Others (Civil Appeal No. 2634 of 2013, decided 7 November 2024).

Shri Vijay Kumar Singh and Shri K P Singh, appearing for the respondents, countered that the applicants' merit was lower than the last selected candidate in the final panel. The 500 Trackman posts belonged to the Construction Division, which returned the list of 341 candidates stating that those posts had been abolished; the remaining candidates were adjusted in other units. No person ranked below the applicants had been appointed. The advertisement itself, at paragraph 14.1, expressly stated that the number of vacancies was provisional and liable to increase or decrease. The life of the select list and the replacement panel had ended by 2014. Counsel relied on the Delhi High Court's judgment dated 16 April 2025 in W.P.(C) No. 10630 of 2018 (Ashish Kumar v. Union of India and Others) and the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India and Others v. Kali Dass Batish and Another, Civil Appeal No. 6663 of 2004.

The Legal Questions Before the Tribunal

The Tribunal identified three core questions: whether the ratio of Dinesh Kumar Kashyap applied to the 2007 recruitment; whether the surrender of 500 Trackman vacancies amounted to an impermissible mid-process change of advertisement conditions; and whether the assurances given by the Railways in 2013 created an enforceable right to appointment.

On the first question, the Tribunal noted that Dinesh Kumar Kashyap arose from the 2010 recruitment and that the Supreme Court had expressly restricted its directions to candidates who had approached the Tribunal. The Chhattisgarh High Court in R Santoshi had itself clarified that the ratio does not automatically extend to all categories of candidates irrespective of chronology or conduct. The Tribunal concluded that the judgment could not be applied to the replacement panel of a different recruitment year, 2007.

On the second question, the Tribunal turned to paragraph 14.1 of Advertisement No. NER/RRC/D/2007/1, which stated in terms that the number of vacancies shown was provisional and liable to be increased or decreased. Applying the Constitution Bench's holding in Tej Prakash Pathak, that eligibility criteria and conditions can be changed mid-process if the advertisement itself so permits and the change is not contrary to extant rules, the Tribunal held that the reduction of vacancies fell squarely within the advertisement's own terms. The applicants had applied and participated accepting those terms. Nothing was placed on record to show that the condition permitting decrease of vacancies was contrary to any extant rule.

On the third question, the Tribunal read the 2013 orders carefully. Those orders had stated that the applicants' cases would be considered only conditionally, if demand arose from a division or unit for candidates who had not joined or were found medically unfit. The Tribunal held that such a conditional communication could not be treated as an unconditional assurance of appointment. Relying on Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India, (1991) 3 SCC 47, the Tribunal reiterated that successful candidates do not acquire an indefeasible right to appointment merely because vacancies were notified, and that the State is under no legal duty to fill all or any vacancies unless the relevant recruitment rules so require.

The Tribunal also addressed the argument that the respondents were supplementing their reasons through affidavit. It found that the plea regarding the Construction Division's return of the 341-candidate list had been taken from the very beginning of the proceedings and was not a fresh reason introduced by way of affidavit.

Why the Applicants' Arithmetic Did Not Help

The applicants had pointed to an apparent anomaly: if 500 Trackman vacancies were surrendered, the effective vacancies should have been 4,049, yet 4,087 candidates were appointed, 38 more than the reduced figure. Counsel argued this showed arbitrariness. The respondents explained that the 341-candidate list sent to the Construction Division was returned because those posts were abolished, and those candidates were adjusted in other units. The Tribunal accepted this explanation, finding no illegality in the return or surrender of the 500 posts given that the advertisement itself contemplated a decrease in vacancies and the posts were no longer continuing in the department.

On RBE No. 17/2024, which the applicants cited to argue that reduction of notified vacancies or cancellation of indent cannot be done by HR, the Tribunal noted that this circular related to GDCE examinations and was issued on 16 February 2024. It could not be applied retrospectively to an open recruitment from 2007.

Outcome

The Tribunal dismissed OA No. 128 of 2014 as devoid of merits. It held that the prayer for appointment was not liable to be allowed given that the life of the select list had ended, no candidate ranked below the applicants had been given appointment, and the case laws relied upon by the applicants did not support their claims in the facts of the 2007 recruitment. All associated miscellaneous applications were disposed of. No costs were awarded.