CAT Allahabad Dismisses Group D Railway Candidates' Appointment Claim From 2007 Recruitment Panel

Twelve candidates on the 20% extra replacement panel of a 2007 North Eastern Railway recruitment sought Group D appointments; CAT Allahabad dismissed the application finding the select list had expired and key precedents inapplicable.

The Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, on 15 May 2026 dismissed an original application filed by twelve candidates who had cleared all stages of a Group D recruitment process conducted by the Railway Recruitment Cell, North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur, under Advertisement No. NER/RRC/D/2007/1 dated 06 December 2007. The applicants, placed in the 20% extra replacement panel, sought directions for appointment against vacancies they claimed remained unfilled. The Tribunal, constituted by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (Judicial), and Hon'ble Mr. Mohan Pyare, Member (Administrative), held that the life of the select list had ended, that the ratio in Dinesh Kumar Kashyap and others v. South East Central Railway and others, (2019) 12 SCC 798, did not extend to the 2007 recruitment, and that the surrender of 500 Trackman vacancies by the Construction Division was not unlawful given the advertisement's own terms.

The Dispute Before the Tribunal

The twelve applicants, residents of Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Jharkhand, and Uttarakhand, had applied in response to Advertisement No. NER/RRC/D/2007/1 dated 06 December 2007, which notified 4,549 Group D posts in North Eastern Railway. They cleared the physical eligibility test, written examination, medical examination, and document verification. When the final select list was published, the applicants found themselves in the waiting list or replacement panel as 20% extra candidates, a category called for document verification under Railway Board's letter dated 17 June 2008 but carrying no guaranteed appointment.

The applicants contended that between 593 and 827 Group D posts remained vacant after the main selection, and that the respondents had surrendered 500 Trackman vacancies belonging to the Construction Division without authority, reducing the advertised posts from 4,549 to 4,049. They further alleged that 4,087 candidates were ultimately appointed, 38 more than the reduced figure of 4,049, without explanation. They argued that respondents had given assurances of appointment and that changing the vacancy count mid-process was impermissible in law.

The original application was filed in 2014. An earlier OA on similar grounds, OA No. 831 of 2013, had been dismissed by the Tribunal. The applicants challenged those orders before the Allahabad High Court. By judgment dated 17 May 2024 in Writ A No. 8561 of 2021 (Union of India and others v. Pappu Kumar and others), the High Court set aside the Tribunal's earlier orders and remanded the matters for fresh decision, directing the Tribunal to record specific findings on the legality of the vacancy surrender and the applicability of Dinesh Kumar Kashyap.

Positions of the Parties

Counsel for the applicants, Shri B.P. Mishra and Shri Shiv Mangal Prajapati, argued that the ratio in Dinesh Kumar Kashyap applied equally to the 2007 recruitment. They relied on the Allahabad High Court's remand judgment, the Chhattisgarh High Court's decision dated 05 December 2025 in WP No. 6291 of 2024 (Union of India v. Smt. R. Santoshi and others), and the Supreme Court's Constitution Bench judgment dated 07 November 2024 in Tej Prakash Pathak and Others v. Rajasthan High Court and Others. They contended that the surrender of 500 vacancies was done without competent authority approval, that no provision permitted such surrender, and that the respondents had changed the terms of the advertisement mid-process.

Counsel for the respondents, Shri Pramod Kumar Rai, countered that the applicants were placed only in the replacement panel as 20% extra candidates and that no person ranked below the applicants had been offered appointment. He argued that the 500 Trackman posts belonged to the Construction Division, which returned the list of 341 candidates stating those posts had been abolished; those candidates were then adjusted in other units. He relied on paragraph 14.1 of the advertisement itself, which stated that the number of vacancies was provisional and liable to increase or decrease. He further argued that Dinesh Kumar Kashyap related to a different recruitment year (2010) and that the life of the select panel had ended. He placed reliance on the Delhi High Court's judgment dated 16 April 2025 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.

The Legal Questions

The Tribunal identified three principal questions: first, whether the ratio in Dinesh Kumar Kashyap applied to the 2007 recruitment; second, whether the surrender of 500 Trackman vacancies by the Construction Division amounted to an impermissible mid-process change to the advertisement's terms; and third, whether the assurances allegedly given by the respondents 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 restricted its directions to candidates who had approached the Tribunal within time. The Chhattisgarh High Court in R. Santoshi had similarly clarified that the ratio of Dinesh Kumar Kashyap, read with subsequent miscellaneous orders, “does not automatically extend to all categories of candidates.” The Tribunal held that the judgment could not be applied to the replacement panel of the 2007 recruitment, which was a different recruitment altogether.

On the second question, the Tribunal turned to paragraph 14.1 of Advertisement No. NER/RRC/D/2007/1, which expressly stated that the number of vacancies shown was provisional and liable to increase or decrease. Applying the Constitution Bench's holding in Tej Prakash Pathak, that eligibility criteria cannot be changed mid-process unless the advertisement itself permits, the Tribunal held that the advertisement did permit variation in vacancy numbers. The applicants had applied and participated in the selection process accepting that condition. No material was placed on record to show that the clause permitting decrease of vacancies was contrary to any extant rule.

On the third question, the Tribunal examined the letters on which the applicants relied as assurances. It found that those communications were conditional: they stated that the applicants' cases would be considered only if a demand arose from a division or unit for candidates who had not joined or were found medically unfit. Relying on Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India, the Tribunal held that such conditional communications could not be read as an unconditional assurance to issue offer letters.

How the Tribunal Reasoned

The Tribunal accepted that the applicants had cleared all stages of the selection process. It also accepted that 4,087 candidates were appointed against a reduced vacancy count of 4,049, leaving the 38-extra-appointment figure unexplained by the respondents. However, it held that none of the appointed candidates ranked below the applicants in merit, and that the applicants' placement in the replacement panel carried no vested right to appointment.

On the surrender of 500 Trackman posts, the Tribunal found that the Construction Division had returned a list of 341 candidates stating the posts were abolished, and those candidates were adjusted in other units. The respondents had raised this position from the outset, not by way of a fresh affidavit. The Tribunal held that reducing vacancies on this basis was not an arbitrary exercise of power and did not amount to supplementing the original reasons with new ones.

The Tribunal also addressed the argument based on RBE No. 17/2024, which the applicants cited to contend that reduction of notified vacancies required HR-level approval. It found that RBE No. 17/2024 related to modification or cancellation of indents for GDCE examinations and was issued on 16 February 2024; it could not govern an open recruitment process from 2007.

Applying the settled position from Shankarsan Dash and the Delhi High Court's analysis in Ashish Kumar, the Tribunal reiterated that a select list is not a reservoir from which appointments can be drawn indefinitely. Ashish Kumar had held that “no relief can be granted to the candidate if he approaches the court after expiry of the select list.” The Tribunal found that the life of the select list in the present matter had admittedly ended, and the entire selection process had concluded by 2014.

Outcome

The Tribunal dismissed Original Application No. 705 of 2014 as devoid of merits. It held that no appointment direction could be issued given that the applicants ranked lower in merit than the last selected candidate, the select list had expired, the surrender of 500 Construction Division vacancies was not unlawful, the ratio of Dinesh Kumar Kashyap did not extend to the 2007 recruitment, and the alleged assurances did not create an enforceable right. All associated miscellaneous applications were disposed of. No costs were awarded.