IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

<>

AT JABALPUR

<>

BEFORE

<>

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA

<>

&

<>

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRADEEP MITTAL

<>

ON THE 25

<>

th

<>

OF FEBRUARY, 2026

<>

MISC. PETITION No. 4869 of 2023

<>

UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

<>

Versus

SUNIL SINGH

<>

Appearance:

<>

Shri Sachin Jain - Advocate for the petitioners.

Shri Megh Nath Benarjee and Shri Adeetya Banarjee, Advocates for

the respondent.

WITH

<>

MISC. PETITION No. 4872 of 2023

<>

UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

<>

Versus

HARIOM MEENA

<>

Appearance:

<>

Shri Sachin Jain - Advocate for the petitioners.

Shri Megh Nath Benarjee and Shri Adeetya Banarjee, Advocates for

the respondent.

ORDER

<>

Per

<>

: Justice Pradeep Mittal

<>

These Miscellaneous petitions are filed under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India by the writ petitioners challenging the order dated

17.05.2023 passed in O.A. No. 200/695/2019 whereby the learned Tribunal

1 MP-4869-2023NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:16526

has directed the petitioners to consider the case of respondents for grant of

appointment though the respondents are not entitled for the same. As these

petitions involve an identical issue, they are heard and decided by this

common order.

2. The petitioners issued Employment Notice No. 02/2012 for

appointment to Group ‘D’ posts. The respondent in M.P. No. 4869 of 2023

applied under the OBC category and was issued an Admit Card to appear in

the written examination held on 17.11.2013. After qualifying in the written

examination, he was called for the Physical Efficiency Test and document

verification. The respondent secured 60.28% normalized marks and was

placed at Rank 2992 under the OBC category. The last selected candidate

under the OBC category secured 60.37% normalized marks with Rank 2953.

As the respondent obtained lesser marks than the last selected candidate, he

was not offered appointment. All notified posts under Employment Notice

No. 02/2012 were filled, and no vacancy remained unfilled. There was no

replacement panel. Thereafter, the respondent filed Original Application

No. 200/695/2019 before the learned Tribunal seeking appointment, along

with an application for condonation of delay, as the Original Application was

time-barred. The petitioners filed their replies; however, the learned Tribunal

did not decide the issue of limitation. By order dated 17.05.2023, the

learned Tribunal directed the petitioners to consider the respondent’s claim

for appointment pursuant to Notification No. 05/2010 dated 15.10.2010,

despite the fact that the respondent had never participated in the said

notification. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 17.05.2023, which is

2 MP-4869-2023NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:16526

illegal, arbitrary, and unreasonable, the petitioners have filed the present

petition. the impugned order dated 17.05.2023 (Annexure P/1) is illegal,

arbitrary, and contrary to law, as it has been passed without properly

considering the relevant facts and applicable rules.

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners/Union of

India that the respondent in M.P. No. 4872 of 2023 was not considered for

appointment as he has secured 42.36% marks (normalized) under ST

category and have got rank 8724. The last candidate of ST category who got

success is Shri Ram Naresh Meena having rank 8404 and secured 42.89

marks (normalized). Thus the respondent has secured less marks in

comparison to last selected candidates under ST category. It is further

submitted that in the employment notification No. 05/2010, 216 posts were

advertised for ST category and 216 candidates were put in the panel. Since

the respondent is way behind in the merit list from the last selected candidate

therefore, appointment was not offered to him and the name of the

respondent was placed in the reserve panel.

4. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal failed to decide the

preliminary objection regarding limitation, even though the Original

Application was filed after an inordinate delay and was clearly barred by

limitation, the cause of action having arisen on 30.06.2014 while the

application was filed only on 06.08.2019.

5. That the Tribunal further erred in relying upon the judgment in

Dinesh Kumar Kashyap and Others vs. South East Central Railway and

Others reported in (2019) 12 SCC 798, which was a judgment in personam

3 MP-4869-2023NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:16526

and not applicable to the present respondents. The Tribunal also wrongly

directed consideration of the respondents' case (M.P.No. 4869 of 2023)

under Notification No. 05/2010, despite the respondent having applied under

Notification No. 02/2012, and ignored the fact that the respondents secured

fewer marks than the last selected OBC and ST category candidate and were

therefore not entitled to selection.

6. It is further submitted that additionally, the Tribunal failed to

consider that subsequent recruitment notifications had already been issued

and completed, no vacancy remains under Notification No. 02/2012 and

05/2010, and Railway Board instructions prohibit preparation of replacement

panels. Thus, the findings of the Tribunal are perverse, contrary to the record

and rules, and the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

7. It is also stated that, as per order dated 22.02.2017, all relevant

documents pertaining to Notification No. 02/2012 had already been

destroyed on 17.02.2017, as they were old and no longer required to be

preserved. The petitioners further contended that the Original Application

was hopelessly barred by limitation, and it is a settled proposition of law that

mere submission of representations does not extend or revive the original

cause of action. It is also submitted that the cut-off marks of the last selected

candidate under the OBC category were 60.37%, and in ST category 42.89%

whereas the respondents who applied under the OBC and ST category

respectively, did not secure the minimum required marks and therefore could

not be selected. The petitioners further clarified that the contention of the

respondents regarding securing 60.28% and 42.89% marks by clubbing

4 MP-4869-2023NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:16526

written and PET test marks is incorrect, as each stage of the selection process

is required to be qualified separately and there is no provision for combining

marks. Accordingly, the petitioners submit that the respondents have no valid

case, and the impugned order deserves to be set aside.

8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondents relying on

the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dinesh Kumar

<>

Kashyap and Others vs. South East Central Railway and Others

<>

reported in

(2019) 12 SCC 798

<>

, submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court ruled that

employers cannot arbitrarily refuse to fill vacancies from a select panel or

waitlist. It is submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that when extra

candidates are selected (e.g., 20% extra pool) and vacancies exist, failing to

appoint them without valid justification is arbitrary, violates Article 14, and

mandates using the panel to fill vacancies. They also placed reliance on the

orders passed by this court in the case of Union of India Vs. Jitendra

<>

Mukhariya and others

<>

in M.P. No. 2222 of 2020 decided on 21.09.2020 and

Sumit Ahirwar Vs. Union of India and others

<>

in M.P. No.5700 of 2025 and

connected matters decided on 12.01.2026 to support their arguments.

9. The contention of the petitioners that in view of the Railway

Board's Circular RBE No.6/2014 no right accrues in favour of the

respondent/applicants also deserves to be rejected for the reason that

Circular RBE 6/2014 is made effective from the future date, this will be

evident from the said Circular which is reproduced for ready reference:-

5 MP-4869-2023NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:16526

"(GOVERNMENT OF INDIA (BHARAT SARKAR)

MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS (RAIL MANTRALAYA)

(RAILWAY BOARD)

RBE No. 06/2014

No. E (NG)-II/2008/RR-1/33 New Delhi, dated:10/01/2014

The General Manager (P),

All Zonal Railways/Production Units

Sub: Recruitment of staff in Pay Band-I of Rs.5200-20200

(Grade Pay: Rs.1800) on Indian Railways – Mode of

dispatch of call letters to applicants regarding.

***

In partial modification to instructions contained in Board’s letter of even number dated

29/5/2013 (RBE No. 53/2013) and 19/8/2013 (RBE No. 85/2013), it is directed that

henceforth, call letter be issued to successful candidates in written examination for

appearing in PET (Physical Efficiency Test), three weeks prior to date of commencement of

PET under “Business Post” instead of earlier instructions of one months prior to date of

conduct of examination.

2. It is also directed that no replacement panels are to be given against non-joining of

selected candidates, as recruitment in Pay Band-1 (Grade Pay : Rs.1800) is now done

annually in terms of instructions contained in Board’s letter No. E(NG)II/2007/RR-

1/58 dated 08.12.2011.

Please acknowledge receipt

(Hindi Version will follow)

(Harsha Dass)

Director Estt. (N)-II

Railway Board.”

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

10. The Tribunal has held that the applicants, having successfully

cleared both the written examination and the PET test, were called for

document verification. Although their names appeared in the panel issued on

28.01.2013 pursuant to Notification No. 05/2010, a corrigendum dated

14.02.2013 removed certain candidates without giving the applicants any

opportunity of hearing, which was procedurally improper. Considering that

486 posts remained vacant and the Supreme Court’s ruling in Dinesh Kumar

<>

Kashyap

<>

(supra) extends benefits to all applicants whose cases were pending

before the Tribunal prior to the judgment, the applicants are entitled to

6 MP-4869-2023NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:16526

appointment. Accordingly, the Tribunal allowed the applicants’ claims and

directed the respondents to consider their claims for Group ‘D’ posts.

11. The respondent in M.P. No. 4869 of 2023 belongs to the OBC

category whereas the respondent- Hariom Meena in M.P. No. 4872 of 2023

belongs to the ST category. By Notification Nos. 02/2012 dated 22.08.2012

and 05/2010 dated 15.12.2010 respectively issued by the Government of

India, Ministry of Railways, Railway Recruitment Cell, West Central

Railway, RBIT/422/1-2, Nehru Railway Colony, Howbagh, Jabalpur (M.P.)

– 482001, 231 posts of Group “D” employees were notified for the OBC

category. The last cut-off mark for the OBC category (including 20% extra

candidates called for verification) was 58.60%, whereas the respondent

secured 60.28% marks. The respondent – Hariom Meena in M.P. No. 4872

of 2023, 216 posts of Group “D” employees were notified for the ST

category. The last cut-off mark for the ST category (including 20% extra

candidates called for verification) was 42.89%, whereas the respondent

secured 42.36% marks. On this basis, the respondents are claiming their

candidature for the post of Group “D” employee.

12. The petitioners/Union of India have clarified that 20% more

candidates than the notified vacancies were called for verification; therefore,

the cut-off mark for verification was in the OBC category was 58.60%.

However, the cut-off mark of the last selected candidate in the OBC category

was 60.37%, which was higher than the marks obtained by the respondent.

Therefore, he is not entitled to appointment. Whereas in the case of

respondent Hariom Meena under the ST Category, the cut-off mark for

7 MP-4869-2023NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:16526

verification was 42.89%. However, the cut-off mark of the last selected

candidate in the ST category was 42.36%, which was higher than the marks

obtained by the respondent. Therefore, they are not entitled to appointment.

The Tribunal has confused and misinterpreted the facts.

13. The respondent obtained information under the RTI Act, wherein

the department stated that 31 candidates were absent during the verification

process. On that basis, the respondent is attempting to contend that 31 posts

in the OBC category remained vacant during the recruitment process.

However, since the cut-off mark of the last selected candidate in the OBC

category was 60.37%, it clearly shows that all OBC category posts were

filled.

14. The respondent has further submitted before the Court that Group

“D” posts are presently available. However, this does not mean that those

posts have remained vacant since the 2012 recruitment process. Secondly, for

the respondent to claim appointment, it must be established that OBC

category posts from the 2012 recruitment remained vacant since that

recruitment process, which has not been proved.

15. First, the respondent must prove that, during the recruitment

process for 231 OBC category posts, the vacancies remained unfilled and

have been lying vacant since 2012 due to the non-availability of suitable

candidates. Secondly, the respondent was placed at serial number 07 in the

merit list, which clearly shows that the six candidates ranked above him had

already been adjusted against the available posts. Therefore, the respondent’s

contention that he secured more marks than the last selected candidate is not

8 MP-4869-2023NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:16526

acceptable. Accordingly, the claim of the respondent does not survive. The

respondent in M.P. No. 4872 of 2023, Hariom Meena obtained information

under the RTI Act, wherein the Department stated that no appointment had

been made from the reserve panel under Notification No. 05/2010. However,

since the cut-off mark of the last selected candidate in the ST category was

42.36%, it clearly shows that all ST category posts were filled. A total of

1,451 candidates were called for verification. Only 216 posts were notified

for the ST category, and there is nothing on record to show that all ST

category posts were not filled during the recruitment process.

16. The respondent has further submitted before the Court that Group

“D” posts are presently available. However, this does not mean that those

posts have remained vacant since the 2012 recruitment process. Secondly, for

the respondent to claim appointment, it must be established that ST category

posts from the 2012 recruitment remained vacant since that recruitment

process, which has not been proved.

17. First, the respondent must prove that, during the recruitment

process for 216 ST category posts, the vacancies remained unfilled and have

been lying vacant since 2012 due to the non-availability of suitable

candidates. Secondly, the respondent was placed at serial number 11 in the

reserve panel, which clearly shows that the candidates ranked above him had

already been adjusted against the available posts. Therefore, the respondent’s

contention that he secured more marks than the last selected candidate is not

acceptable. Accordingly, the claim of the respondent does not survive.

18. The learned Tribunal committed an error in allowing the

9 MP-4869-2023NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:16526

respondent’s claim by relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme

Court in the case of Dinesh Kumar Kashyap,

<>

(supra) as the said judgment

does not apply to the facts of the present case, since the Group “D” posts for

ST and OBC candidates have not remained vacant since the 2012 recruitment

process. Further, the judgments of this Court in the cases of Jitendra

<>

Mukhariya

<>

and Sumit Ahirwar

<>

(supra) are distinguishable on facts and are

not applicable to the present case.

19. The contention of the respondents that, in view of Railway

Board Circular RBE No. 6/2014, a right has accrued in his favour to be

appointed is misconceived. The said circular would apply only if the OBC

and ST category posts remained vacant after the completion of the main

selection process notified under Notification No. 02/2012 and 5/2010, and

such vacancies continued due to the non-availability of suitable candidates.

In the present case, the respondents were not a selected candidate in the main

selection list; rather, he was placed at serial number 07 under OBC category

in the waiting list and respondent Hariom Meena was placed in the reserve

panel at serial No.11. The waiting list comes into operation only after the

main selection list is exhausted. Since the OBC and ST quota posts were

already filled during the main selection process, the said circular does not

apply to the respondents, and they cannot claim appointment on that basis.

20. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the

learned Tribunal has committed an error in passing the impugned order.

Therefore, both the petitions are allowed, and the impugned order dated

17.05.2023 passed in O.A. Nos. 200/695/2019 and 200/722/2021

10 MP-4869-2023NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:16526

(VIVEK RUSIA)

<>

JUDGE

<>

(PRADEEP MITTAL)

<>

JUDGE

<>

respectively by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, is

hereby set aside. There shall be no order as to costs.

MSP

11 MP-4869-2023NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:16526