Summary
By a 2:1 majority, the Supreme Court directed appointment of eligible appellants from the Railways’ 20% extra-candidate category under the 2008 replacement-panel instructions. Selection conferred no vested appointment right, but the Railways gave no cogent, non-arbitrary reason for leaving vacancies unfilled. Relief was limited to appellants who approached CAT, without back wages but with specified notional pay and seniority benefits. Hemant Gupta J. dissented and would have dismissed the appeals.
Issues
- Whether the Railways could refuse to use the extra-candidate replacement mechanism without adequate justification.
- Whether subsequent recruitment, official delay or panel expiry defeated these appellants’ claims.
- What relief followed and how the dissent differed.
Provisions considered
- Paragraphs 3 and 4(i)–(iii), Railway Board instructions dated 2 July 2008The extra 20% were called to avoid shortfall, without automatic appointment entitlement. The majority required implementation of the replacement mechanism where refusal lacked a cogent justification. (¶¶ Deepak Gupta J., 3, Deepak Gupta J., 6, Deepak Gupta J., 13)
Held
- Majority: a selected candidate has no vested appointment right, and the employer need not fill every vacancy. Nevertheless, a State employer must provide a reasonable, non-arbitrary justification for refusing to fill available posts from the replacement category. (¶¶ Deepak Gupta J., 6, Deepak Gupta J., 7)
- Majority: failure of the responsible official to complete the cancellation/replacement procedure could not prejudice the candidates. Subsequent recruitment and differing later examination cut-offs did not justify denying their claim under the earlier process. (¶¶ Deepak Gupta J., 8, Deepak Gupta J., 9, Deepak Gupta J., 10, Deepak Gupta J., 12)
- Majority: appellants who promptly approached CAT and the High Court could not lose relief merely through panel expiry while litigation remained pending. (¶ Deepak Gupta J., 11)
- Majority: relief was confined to appellants who had approached CAT. Eligible appellants must receive appointment within three months, with no back wages; notional pay fixation and seniority would place them below the 2010-list candidates and above the first candidates selected in the 2012 process. (¶¶ Deepak Gupta J., 14, Deepak Gupta J., 15)
- Dissent: the appellants were at most waiting-list candidates without an indefeasible right. The later recruitment cycles supplied a non-arbitrary reason not to operate replacements; the expired panel could not remain a continuing source of appointments. The dissent would uphold the Tribunal and High Court and dismiss the appeals. (¶¶ Hemant Gupta J., 18, Hemant Gupta J., 19, Hemant Gupta J., 22, Hemant Gupta J., 23, Hemant Gupta J., 24)
Result
By majority, appeals allowed and Tribunal and High Court judgments set aside. Eligible appellants who approached CAT to receive appointments within three months, no back wages, and specified notional pay/seniority benefits. Hemant Gupta J. dissented.