CAT Allahabad Dismisses Group D Railway Candidates' Appointment Claim Arising from 2007 Advertisement

Four candidates who cleared all stages of North Eastern Railway's 2007 Group D selection but were placed only in the 20% replacement panel have had their appointment claim dismissed by CAT Allahabad, with the bench holding that the select list's life has ended and the ratio of Dinesh Kumar Kashyap does not extend to the 2007 recruitment.

The Central Administrative Tribunal's Allahabad Bench, comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (Judicial), and Hon'ble Mr. Mohan Pyare, Member (Administrative), dismissed Original Application No. 208 of 2020 on 15 May 2026. The applicants, four candidates from Uttar Pradesh and Bihar, had sought appointment to Group D posts in North Eastern Railway on the basis of a selection process initiated by Advertisement No. NER/RRC/D/2007/1 dated 06 December 2007. The bench found that the applicants were placed only in the replacement panel as 20% extra candidates, that the life of the select list had ended, that 500 vacancies had been validly surrendered by the Construction Division, and that 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 recruitment year 2010 and could not be transplanted to the 2007 recruitment.

The 2007 Advertisement and the Applicants' Position in the Selection

Advertisement No. NER/RRC/D/2007/1 dated 06 December 2007 invited applications for Group D posts in North Eastern Railway, notifying 4,549 vacancies. The four applicants participated in all stages: the physical eligibility test, written examination, medical examination, and document verification.

On 24 August 2012, results for 3,722 candidates were published. A further list of 220 candidates followed. The applicants' names did not appear in either list. On the basis of the written examination, 5,363 candidates had been declared successful against the 4,549 advertised posts. The applicants were placed in the replacement panel as 20% extra candidates, a category maintained under Railway Board Circular RBE No. 73/2008 dated 17 June 2008, but their merit was lower than that of the last selected candidate in the main panel.

The respondents ultimately conferred employment on 4,087 candidates. The applicants contended that 500 vacancies of Trackman belonging to the Construction Division had been surrendered without authority, that 374 candidates from the main list had not joined within the stipulated period, and that as many as 378 empanelled candidates had refused to join across multiple letters issued by the respondents between 2013 and 2017. They argued that these unfilled slots should have been offered to replacement panel candidates in order of merit.

A Decade of Proceedings Before the Tribunal and the High Court

The litigation history is long. Some applicants first approached the Tribunal through OA No. 163 of 2013, which was disposed of at the admission stage on 13 February 2013 with a direction to the respondents to reconsider their representation. The respondents responded on 10 April 2013 and 17 June 2013, stating that the applicants' merit rank was below the last selected candidate but that future vacancies arising from non-joining or disqualification could be considered according to merit. No appointment followed.

OA No. 831 of 2013, filed by similarly situated candidates, was dismissed on 27 September 2013 on the ground that inclusion in a select list does not guarantee appointment when no vacancies exist. The applicants then filed the present OA No. 208 of 2020, which was decided on 17 August 2021 directing the respondents to consider the applicants' case. The respondents challenged that order before the Allahabad High Court.

The High Court, in Writ A No. 8561 of 2021 (Union of India and Others v. Pappu Kumar and Others), decided on 17 May 2024, set aside the Tribunal's order and remanded all connected OAs for fresh consideration. The High Court found that the Tribunal had not recorded any finding on the legality of the respondents' decision to surrender 500 posts, and that the assurance given in the orders of 9 May 2013 and 17 June 2013 was conditional, not unconditional.

The Rival Contentions on Remand

On remand, the applicants pressed three main arguments. First, the ratio of Dinesh Kumar Kashyap (supra) required the respondents to fill all advertised vacancies and to consider replacement panel candidates where main-list candidates had not joined. Second, the respondents had changed the terms of the advertisement midway by surrendering 500 vacancies, which was impermissible under the Constitution Bench decision in Tej Prakash Pathak and Others v. Rajasthan High Court and Others, decided on 7 November 2024. Third, Railway Board Circulars RBE No. 121/2005 and RBE No. 73/2008 entitled them to appointment. The applicants also relied on the Chhattisgarh High Court's judgment dated 5 December 2025 in Union of India v. Smt R Santoshi and Others (WPS No. 6291 of 2024 and connected matters), which had directed a vacancy audit for the 2010 recruitment.

The respondents countered that the applicants had qualified only as 20% extra candidates and their merit was lower than the last selected candidate. Employment had been conferred on 4,087 candidates. The 500 Trackman posts belonged to the Construction Division, which had returned the panel of 341 candidates on the ground that those posts had been abolished; those candidates were adjusted in other units. No candidate lower in merit than the applicants had been appointed. The advertisement itself, at paragraph 14.1, stated that the number of vacancies was provisional and liable to increase or decrease. The life of the select list had ended and the entire selection process was over by 2014. Subsequent recruitments had been held in 2010 and 2012.

The respondents relied on the Delhi High Court's judgment dated 16 April 2025 in Ashish Kumar v. Union of India and Others (W.P.(C) No. 10630 of 2018) and the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India and Others v. Kali Dass Batish and Another, Civil Appeal No. 6663 of 2004, decided on 5 January 2006.

How the Tribunal Reasoned

The bench addressed each issue in sequence.

Applicability of Dinesh Kumar Kashyap: The Tribunal held that the Supreme Court's directions in that case were expressly restricted to candidates who had approached the Tribunal and were confined to the recruitment year 2010. The Chhattisgarh High Court in R Santoshi had itself clarified, at paragraph 52, that the ratio does not automatically extend to all categories of candidates. Since the present matter concerned the recruitment year 2007, a different recruitment, the directions in Dinesh Kumar Kashyap could not be applied.

Surrender of 500 vacancies: The bench noted that paragraph 14.1 of Advertisement No. NER/RRC/D/2007/1 expressly stated that the number of vacancies was provisional and liable to increase or decrease. The Constitution Bench in Tej Prakash Pathak had held that eligibility criteria cannot be changed midway unless the advertisement itself permits it. Here, the advertisement did permit variation in vacancy numbers. The applicants had applied and appeared in the selection process accepting that condition. Nothing was placed on record to show that the condition was contrary to extant rules. The 500 Trackman posts had been advertised for the Construction Division (CAO), and the Construction Division had returned the panel because those posts were abolished. The bench found no illegality in the surrender.

On the applicants' argument that RBE No. 17/2024 prohibited reduction of notified vacancies, the bench held that that circular related to modification or cancellation of indent for GDCE examinations and was issued on 16 February 2024; it could not be applied to an open recruitment for the vacancy year 2007.

Assurance by the respondents: The bench applied the Constitution Bench decision in Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India, (1991) 3 SCC 47, which holds that successful candidates do not acquire an indefeasible right to appointment merely because vacancies are notified, and that the State is under no legal duty to fill all vacancies unless the recruitment rules so indicate. The letters of 10 April 2013 and 17 June 2013 were conditional, they stated that the applicants' cases may be considered if demand arose from a division or unit in place of candidates who did not join or were found medically unfit. The bench held that these letters could not be read as an unconditional assurance to issue offer letters.

Life of the select list: The bench accepted the respondents' position, supported by the Delhi High Court's reasoning in Ashish Kumar, 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. The entire selection process had concluded by 2014.

Fresh reasons by affidavit: The bench found that the plea regarding the return of 341 Trackman posts by the Construction Division had been raised from the very beginning of the proceedings and was not a fresh reason introduced by affidavit at a later stage.

Order

The Tribunal dismissed OA No. 208 of 2020 as devoid of merits. It held that no relief could be granted to the applicants given that the life of the select list had ended, the applicants were lower in merit than the candidates who had been selected, and the case laws discussed did not support the reliefs claimed. No benefit under RBE No. 73/2008 or RBE No. 121/2005 was found to be available on the facts. All associated Miscellaneous Applications were disposed of. No costs were awarded.