PARVENDRA KUMAR vs RAILWAY BOARD
- Court
- Central Administrative Tribunal
1
Item no.19 (C-3)
OA No.3411/20
025
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATI
IVE TRIBUNAL
NEW DELHI
PRINCIPAL BENCH: N
OA NO.3411/202
25
Reserved on 12.10.2026
onounced on 27.10.2026
Pro
S. HARVINDER KAUR OBERO
R. SUMEET JERATH, MEMBE
HON’BLE MS
HON’BLE DR
Parvendra Ku
S/o Shri Naw
Aged about 4
R/o E-2142, G
Siddharth Vih
Ghaziabad, U
OI, MEMBER (J)
R (A)
umar,
wab Singh,
43 years,
Gaur Siddharthan,
har,
Uttar Pradesh-201009.
…Applicant
(By advocate
e: Mr. Apurb Lal)
Versus
of India,
1. Union o
Ministry
Throug
Rail Bh
Rafi Ma
2. The Sec
Railway
Rail Bh
Rafi Ma
3. The Sec
Union P
Dholpu
Shahja
New De
y of Railways (Railway Board)
h Chairman, Railway Board,
avan,
arg, New Delhi-110001.
cretary,
y Board,
avan,
arg, New Delhi-110001.
cretary,
Public Service Commission,
r House,
han Road,
elhi-110069.
…Respondents
ngh Charak & Mr. Karan
(By advocate
Kumar)
e: Thakur Virender Pratap Sin
JUGAL KISHORE
JUGAL KISHORE
2026.11.02 12:49:43+05'30'
2
Item no.19 (C-3)
OA No.3411/20
025
:ORDER:
HON’BLE D
DR SUMMET JERATH, ME
EMBER (A):
The in
nstant Original Application h
has been filed by the
Applicant un
der Section 19 of the Admi
nistrative Tribunals Act,
1985, seeking
g the following reliefs:
“(i) pas
list for
ss directions to UPSC to issue
e a fresh supplementary
ame of the Applicant.
Category III containing the na
(ii) pas
Board)
of 2017
ss directions to the Ministr
ry of Railways (Railway
to include the name of the Ap
7, with all consequential benef
pplicant in the Select List
fits.
(iii) cal
l for the records of the case.
(iv) pas
proper.
2. The fac
ss such other and further ord
der as may deem fit and
”
ctual matrix of the present c
case, as per the learned
counsel for th
he Applicant, is that the Applic
cant is presently working
as an Officiat
ting Section Officer, Group ‘B’
’ Gazetted, on an ad hoc
basis in the
Ministry of Railways (Railw
way Board) (hereinafter
referred to a
s the “Ministry”). It is conten
ded that the Applicant is
entitled to i
nvoke the jurisdiction of th
his Hon’ble Tribunal on
account of th
he alleged violation of his righ
hts under Articles 14, 16
and 21 of the
e Constitution of India, as well
as his other legal rights.
3. It is su
ubmitted that, in December
2021, the Union Public
Service Comm
mission (hereinafter referred
to as “UPSC”) conducted
the Limited D
Departmental Competitive Ex
amination (LDCE), albeit
belatedly, for
r inclusion of names in the S
Select Lists of 2016 and
2017 for th
he Section Officers’ Grade
of the Railway Board
JUGAL KISHORE
JUGAL KISHORE
2026.11.02 12:49:43+05'30'
3
Item no.19 (C-3)
Secretariat S
OA No.3411/20
025
Service (hereinafter referred t
to as “RBSS”). The said
examination
formed part of the
e Combined Section
Officers’/Sten
nographers’ (Grade B/Grade-
I) Limited Departmental
Competitive
Examination for the years 20
016–2017, conducted for
additions to
the Select Lists of the Sect
tion Officers’ Grade and
Stenographer
rs’ (Grade B/Grade-I) of vario
us services.
4. The Ap
pplicant, being an eligible o
officer of the Assistant
Section Offic
cers’ Grade of the RBSS, ap
ppeared in the aforesaid
examination
as a candidate under Categ
gory III, i.e. the Section
Officers’ Grad
de of the RBSS, bearing Roll N
No. 0800819.
5. It is fur
rther submitted that the rules
s governing the aforesaid
examination
were notified by the Depar
tment of Personnel and
Training (her
reinafter referred to as “DoP&
&T”) vide Notification No.
6/1/2020-CS
.I(P) dated 15.09.2021. R
Rule 11 of the said
Notification s
stipulated that a candidate
who, after applying for
admission to
the examination or after ap
ppearing therein, resigns
from his/her
appointment or otherwise se
evers his/her connection
with the serv
vice, subject to the conditions
s specified therein, would
not be eligib
ble for appointment on the b
asis of the result of the
examination.
Rule 11 is reproduced below:
“11. A
examin
appoint
connect
his/her
or to an
the As
Secreta
or Ste
candidate who after applyin
nation or after appearing
ng for admission to the
at it, resigns his/her
service or severs his/her
ices are terminated by
nted to an ex-cadre post
nd does not have a lien in
tment or otherwise quits the
tion with it or whose serv
Department or who is appoin
nother Service on 'transfer' an
ssistant Section Officers' G
ariat Service/Railway Board
Grades of the Central
Secretariat Service/I.B./
he Central Secretariat
enographer Grade-C of th
JUGAL KISHORE
JUGAL KISHORE
2026.11.02 12:49:43+05'30'
4
Item no.19 (C-3)
OA No.3411/20
025
Service
Stenog
Service
or any
be eligi
6. The UP
e/Railway Board Steno
raphers' Service/Grade 11
e/Armed Forces Headquarters
ographers' Secretariat
of 1.B. Stenographers'
s Stenographers' Service
ervice, Branch 'B' will not
post in the Indian Foreign Se
ble for appointment on the re
sult of this examination."
PSC declared the final results o
of the aforesaid LDCE on
19.09.2022.
According to the Applicant,
the result declared for
Category III
contained two names which h
had already figured in the
relevant Sel
ect List, thereby necessitat
ting the issuance of a
supplementar
ry list containing two fresh na
mes, one each under the
Unreserved a
and Scheduled Tribe (ST) c
categories, for the year
2017.
7. It is fur
rther submitted that the last c
candidate selected under
the Unreserv
ved category for the Select L
List of 2017 had secured
304 marks, w
whereas two candidates, incl
luding the Applicant and
one Shri Sat
tyendra Kumar, had secured
d 303 marks each. The
Applicant ass
serts that Shri Satyendra Kum
mar was senior to him in
age, being ol
der as per his date of birth.
8. The Ap
plicant claims that he subsequ
uently came to know that
Shri Satyend
dra Kumar had resigned from
m the RBSS and joined
another orga
anisation situated in the St
tate of Jharkhand. The
Applicant fur
rther learnt that the candida
ature of Shri Satyendra
Kumar had
been forwarded by the Mi
nistry to the UPSC on
18.10.2021,
notwithstanding the fact tha
at Shri Satyendra Kumar
had submitte
ed his resignation on 12.08.2
2021 and the same had
been accepte
ed by the Ministry on 31.08
.2021. According to the
JUGAL KISHORE
JUGAL KISHORE
2026.11.02 12:49:43+05'30'
5
Item no.19 (C-3)
Applicant, th
OA No.3411/20
025
e forwarding of his candidatu
ure was contrary to Rule
11 of the afo
oresaid Notification dated 15
.09.2021, rendering him
ineligible for
r appointment on the basis
s of the result of the
examination.
9. Aggriev
ved by the aforesaid position,
the Applicant submitted
a representat
tion dated 26.09.2022 to the
e Ministry, within a week
of the declara
ation of the result on 19.09.2
2022, requesting that the
UPSC be app
prised of the relevant facts
and advised to issue a
supplementar
ry list containing his name. Th
he Applicant alleges that,
despite the la
apse of a considerable period
, no effective action was
taken on h
his representation. He furt
ther refers to another
representatio
on, stated to have been su
bmitted on 13.06.2022,
reiterating his
s request for appropriate actio
on.
10. The Ap
plicant states that, on 30.08.
2023, he came to know,
through Offic
ce Order No. 56 issued by the
e Ministry, that the UPSC
had, in the m
meanwhile, issued a suppleme
entary list recommending
the name of
Shri Satyendra Kumar. Howe
ever, the Ministry did not
accept the sa
aid recommendation on the gro
ound that Shri Satyendra
Kumar’s lien
in the RBSS cadre had alrea
dy been terminated with
effect from 0
6.09.2022.
11. Being a
aggrieved by the non-inclusio
on of his name and the
recommenda
tion of Shri Satyendra Kuma
ar in the supplementary
list, the Ap
pplicant submitted a furthe
er representation dated
02.09.2024
to the Ministry, which, a
according to him, was
JUGAL KISHORE
JUGAL KISHORE
2026.11.02 12:49:43+05'30'
6
Item no.19 (C-3)
forwarded by
OA No.3411/20
025
y the Ministry to the UPSC fo
or necessary action. The
Applicant ass
serts that the said represent
tation did not yield any
favourable o
utcome. Thereafter, upon be
eing informally given to
understand t
hat the UPSC would not reco
ommend his name unless
the Ministry
rejected the candidature of
f Shri Satyendra Kumar
itself, the A
Applicant submitted anothe
er representation dated
27.12.2024 t
o the Ministry, with a copy en
dorsed to the UPSC.
12. The Ap
plicant further submits that, a
as no decision favourable
to him was
forthcoming and several off
ficers junior to him had
meanwhile b
been selected through the LD
DCEs for the succeeding
years, namel
y 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 20
022 and 2023, he sought
information f
rom the UPSC under the Righ
t to Information Act. The
UPSC furnish
hed the requisite informatio
on vide its letter dated
01.07.2025.
According to the Applicant, t
the information disclosed
by the UPSC
revealed, inter alia, the follow
wing facts:
“(a) It w
from hi
of Tech
on 06
institut
circums
under
Manual
Establis
annexe
was disclosed that Shri Satyen
is appointment in the RBSS to
hnology (Indian School of Mine
ndra Kumar had resigned
o join the Indian Institute
es), Dhanbad, Jharkhand,
.09.2021. The Applicant co
ion is an autonomous bo
stances, there was no questio
ontends that the said
ody and that, in the
on of retention of his lien
n Railway Establishment
Rule 1406-A of the Indian
. A copy of Chapter XIV
shment Manual, containing
ed to the Original Application a
of the Indian Railway
Rule 1406-A, has been
as Annexure A-8.
(b) The
the kn
forward
UPSC o
RBSS a
e Applicant alleges that the a
aforesaid fact was within
evertheless, the Ministry
owledge of the Ministry. Ne
ded the candidature of Shri S
on 18.10.2021, despite his h
and joined the aforesaid institu
Satyendra Kumar to the
aving resigned from the
ution on 06.09.2021.
(c) Ac
exchan
ccording to the Applicant
ged between the Ministry and
t, the correspondence
d the UPSC demonstrates
JUGAL KISHORE
JUGAL KISHORE
2026.11.02 12:49:43+05'30'
7
Item no.19 (C-3)
OA No.3411/20
025
that th
Shri S
Applica
that, in
his can
Notifica
to have
e relevant circumstances con
Satyendra Kumar were not
ncerning the eligibility of
duly considered. The
ties failed to appreciate
nt alleges that the authorit
n view of his resignation and s
ndidature was not maintainab
subsequent appointment,
ble under Rule 11 of the
ation dated 15.09.2021 and t
e recommended his name.
that the UPSC ought not
(d) The
sought
Satyend
recomm
not be
Ministry
necessa
supplem
e Applicant further contends
that, while the Ministry
to justify the forwarding of
dra Kumar, it ultimately declin
mendation on the ground tha
the candidature of Shri
ned to accept the UPSC’s
at his appointment could
effected. The Applicant also
y forwarding his representa
ary action, the UPSC did
mentary list containing his nam
alleges that, despite the
ations to the UPSC for
d not issue a fresh
me.
(e) The
reveale
recomm
notwith
recomm
Applica
been fo
give eff
of the m
Applica
deadloc
matter
No. ERB
13. The Ap
e Applicant submits that the
ed that the UPSC contin
mendation in favour of S
hstanding the Ministry’s co
mendation could not be implem
e RTI disclosures further
nued to maintain its
Shri Satyendra Kumar,
ommunication that the
mented. According to the
nt, even assuming that the
orwarded by the Ministry, the
candidature had initially
e subsequent inability to
warranted reconsideration
fect to the recommendation w
matter and issuance of a fresh
h supplementary list. The
nt alleges that the failure to
ck between the two authorit
do so has resulted in a
ties. In this regard, the
y to the UPSC vide letter
was referred by the Ministry
B-I/2020/14/23 dated 20.03.2
2025.”
pplicant further submits that,
, owing to the aforesaid
impasse betw
ween the Ministry and the U
UPSC, the Select List of
2017 has r
emained incomplete, even
though the LDCEs for
subsequent y
years, up to 2024, have alre
ady been conducted. He
further states
s that the other officers inclu
uded in the Select List of
2017 have si
nce been promoted to the nex
xt grade, namely Grade I
of the RBS
S, corresponding to the U
Under Secretary/Deputy
Director’s Gra
ade.
JUGAL KISHORE
JUGAL KISHORE
2026.11.02 12:49:43+05'30'
8
Item no.19 (C-3)
14. The Ap
OA No.3411/20
025
pplicant contends that, had th
e Ministry and the UPSC
duly consider
red the relevant facts and tak
ken appropriate action in
accordance w
with the applicable rules, th
he issue concerning his
candidature
would have been resolved i
n 2022 itself. However,
despite the r
representations submitted by
y him from time to time
and the corr
respondence exchanged betw
een the two authorities,
the matter ha
as remained unresolved.
15. In the
aforesaid circumstances, the
Applicant claims that he
has been left
t with no efficacious alternat
ive but to approach this
Hon’ble Trib
unal by way of the prese
ent Original Application,
seeking app
ropriate directions to the U
UPSC to issue a fresh
supplementar
ry list for Category III contain
ning his name and to the
Ministry to in
nclude his name in the Selec
ct List of 2017, together
with all conse
equential benefits, in accordan
nce with law.
16. The lea
arned counsel for the Applica
nt assiduously advanced
the following
grounds in support of the Orig
ginal Application:
“(a) Th
obligati
LDCE b
a deser
he UPSC has failed to disc
ions and has defeated the ver
by leaving a vacancy unfilled, d
charge its constitutional
ry purpose of holding the
despite the availability of
Applicant.
rving candidate, namely, the A
(b) The
obligati
Ministry
Ministry
his ap
violatio
notified
duty-bo
e UPSC has grossly failed to di
scharge its constitutional
me of a candidate to the
rmed in writing by the
ions by recommending the na
y despite having been infor
y that the said candidate ha
d already resigned from
ndation was in flagrant
pointment. Such recommen
on of Rule 11 of the Rules gov
verning the examination,
21, which the UPSC was
d by the DoP&T on 15.09.202
ound to adhere to.
(c) Th
comme
he UPSC failed to dischar
ensurate with its high constitut
rge the responsibilities
tional status by making a
JUGAL KISHORE
JUGAL KISHORE
2026.11.02 12:49:43+05'30'
9
Item no.19 (C-3)
OA No.3411/20
025
recomm
the per
had alr
Ministry
namely
mendation which it knew could
d not be implemented, as
rson in whose favour the rec
ready ceased to be a member
ommendation was made
of the service under the
er different organisation,
y and had joined an altogethe
y, an autonomous body.
(d) The
not rec
incapab
recomm
candida
also be
e UPSC failed to discharge its
s constitutional duties by
mmendation, which was
considering its earlier recom
ble of implementation, and
mendation despite the avai
by not making a fresh
lability of a deserving
whose representation had
ate, namely, the Applicant, w
en duly forwarded to the UPSC
C by the Ministry.
(e) The
with law
person
from h
accepte
institut
said ac
Rule 14
e Ministry failed to discharge
its duties in accordance
021, the candidature of a
w by forwarding, on 18.10.20
who, according to the Applica
his appointment, with his r
ant, had already resigned
resignation having been
ed on 31.08.2021, and had
joined an autonomous
licant contends that the
pplicable rules, including
ion on 06.09.2021. The App
ction was contrary to the ap
406-A of the Indian Railway Es
stablishment Manual.
(f) The
compou
appear
ineligib
institut
addition
in the
examin
candida
e aforesaid lapse on the pa
art of the Ministry was
ng the said individual to
withstanding his alleged
unded by the UPSC permittin
in the examination, notw
ility and the fact that he had
ion. According to the Applic
nal irregularity, as a person w
d joined an autonomous
cant, this resulted in an
ho was no longer serving
participating service was
nation without the requisi
ature by his employer.
permitted to take the
ite forwarding of his
(g) The
apathy
every
candida
appoint
and the
Select
authori
any ev
remain
Applica
compet
matter
require
e Applicant has become a
victim of administrative
Had the irregularities at
and prolonged indecision. H
stage, commencing from t
ature of a person who had a
the acceptance of the
lready resigned from his
ppear in the examination
tment, to permitting him to ap
ereafter recommending his n
ame for inclusion in the
mined by the concerned
ould not have arisen. In
cquire legality merely by
riod of four years. The
List of 2017, been duly exam
ties, the present impasse wo
ent, an illegality does not ac
ing uncorrected over a per
nt, therefore, submits that
tent to intervene and direct th
this Hon’ble Tribunal is
e authorities to bring the
pplicable rules and the
in conformity with the ap
ments of law.”
JUGAL KISHORE
JUGAL KISHORE
2026.11.02 12:49:43+05'30'
10
Item no.19 (C-3)
17. During
OA No.3411/20
025
the course of his argumen
nts, the counsel of the
applicant han
nded over across the bar a c
copy of the judgment of
Hon’ble Sup
preme Court in Civil Appea
al No.6707/2013 dated
12.08.2013
– Manoj Manu & Anothr
Vs Union of India &
Others to b
buttress his arguments whi
ch inter alia states as
follows:-
“18. I
circums
list, aft
vacanci
"repeat
case it
sent. H
has cle
candida
and on
appella
the vac
It is not the case of the
stances the names are sent b
ter sending the names of the
e UPSC that under no
by way of supplementary
candidates equal to the
C itself, names of
sent and in the present
ies. As per the UPSC
t/common" candidates are s
self, three names belonging
However, exclusion of the per
to such category were
rsons like the appellants
early resulted in discriminatio
n as one of those three
d also secured 305 marks
ates Rajesh Kumar Yadav had
nce he was appointed to th
e post in question, the
been left out even when
nts with same marks have b
cancies were available.
19. W
present
against
inappro
aside t
issue M
next th
post of
from th
the said
arrears
18. Per con
We are, therefore, of the opi
nion in the facts of the
n forwarding three names
t case, the decision of UPSC in
t requisition of DoP&T fo
opriate. We, accordingly, allow
the order of the High Court
Mandamus to the UPSC to fo
hree candidates to the DoP&T
or six vacancies was
w the present appeal; set
as well as Tribunal and
rward the names of the
T for appointment to the
ey shall get the seniority
f Section Officer's Grade. The
he date when Rajesh Kumar
Yadav was appointed to
ally be fixed, without any
d post. Their pay shall notiona
s of the pay and other allowanc
ces.”
ntra, the learned counsel for R
Respondent No. 3 (UPSC),
in its short
reply dated 24.12.2025 a
and subsequent counter
affidavit, opp
posed the above averments
and argued vociferously
that the pres
ent Original Application was b
barred by limitation under
Section 21
of the Administrative Tribun
nals Act, 1985. It was
submitted th
hat the UPSC had already iss
sued the supplementary
JUGAL KISHORE
JUGAL KISHORE
2026.11.02 12:49:43+05'30'
11
Item no.19 (C-3)
result on 17.
OA No.3411/20
025
07.2023, recommending the
names of Shri Satyendra
Kumar under
r the Unreserved category and
d Shri Rahul Meena under
the Schedule
d Tribe category for inclusion
in the Select List of 2017
for the Secti
ion Officers’ Grade of the Ra
ailway Board Secretariat
Service (RBS
SS), pursuant to the request
made by the Ministry of
Railways, t
he cadre-controlling autho
ority. The Applicant’s
representatio
on dated 13.06.2023, seeking
inclusion of his name in
the said Sele
ect List, had also been consid
dered and disposed of by
the UPSC v
vide its letter dated 17.07
.2023, wherein it was
communicate
ed that requests for declar
ration of supplementary
results after
finalisation of the examinatio
on results were ordinarily
considered on
nly in cases involving vacancie
es withheld on account of
pending cour
rt or Tribunal proceedings, w
which were subsequently
disposed of,
or where candidates already
y qualified in a previous
year’s LDCE w
were recommended again in t
the final result. Since the
Applicant’s c
case did not fall within e
either of the aforesaid
categories, h
his request for inclusion in th
he supplementary result
could not be
entertained. Accordingly, it
was contended that the
matter had
been conclusively conside
ered by the UPSC on
17.07.2023 a
and that the subsequent repre
esentations submitted by
the Applicant
t could neither revive the limit
ation period nor give rise
to a fresh ca
use of action. Reliance was p
laced on the decisions of
the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Union of
f India v. M.K. Sarkar ,
(2010) 2 SCC
C 59, and C. Jacob v. Directo
r of Geology and Mining ,
(2008) 10 SC
CC 115. It was further conte
ended that the Applicant
had neither
r satisfactorily explained t
the delay nor sought
JUGAL KISHORE
JUGAL KISHORE
2026.11.02 12:49:43+05'30'
12
Item no.19 (C-3)
condonation t
OA No.3411/20
025
thereof under Section 21(3) o
of the Act and, therefore,
the Original
Application was liable to be
dismissed as barred by
limitation.
19. The lea
arned counsel further submit
tted that the UPSC is a
constitutiona
l body established under Art
ticles 315 to 323 of the
Constitution
of India and discharges its
functions in accordance
with the appl
licable recruitment rules and
examination notifications
issued by the
e Government. The Combined
d Section Officers’ (Grade
B)/Stenograp
phers’ (Grade-I) Limited De
epartmental Competitive
Examination
for the years 2016 and 20
17 had been conducted
pursuant to t
the DoP&T Notification dated 1
15.09.2021, and the final
result thereo
f was declared on 19.09.2022
2. It was explained that,
since the na
ames of two candidates rec
commended against the
Select Lists o
of earlier years had already fig
gured in the Select List of
2017, the M
Ministry of Railways requeste
ed the UPSC to issue a
supplementar
ry result against two vacanc
ies, one each under the
Unreserved
and Scheduled Tribe categ
gories. Accordingly, the
supplementar
ry result was issued on 17.07.
.2023.
20. With re
egard to the candidature of S
Shri Satyendra Kumar, it
was submitte
ed that the Ministry of Railway
ys had informed the UPSC
that his tech
hnical resignation had been a
accepted on 31.08.2021,
but his lien in
n the Assistant Section Officers
s’ Grade of the RBSS had
been retained
d. On that basis, his candidat
ture had been forwarded
to the UPSC
on 18.10.2021, as he was c
considered eligible under
the applicable
e examination rules. The Mini
istry had further clarified
JUGAL KISHORE
JUGAL KISHORE
2026.11.02 12:49:43+05'30'
13
Item no.19 (C-3)
that Shri Sat
OA No.3411/20
025
tyendra Kumar was confirmed
d in IIT (ISM), Dhanbad,
with effect fr
rom 06.09.2022, and that his
s lien in the RBSS cadre
consequently
y stood terminated from
that date. The UPSC
contended th
hat the Ministry, vide its lette
r dated 11.11.2024, had
categorically
clarified that the candidature
of Shri Satyendra Kumar
had not been
n rejected; rather, he had no
ot been promoted to the
Section Office
ers’ Grade on the basis of the
e LDCE, 2017, as he was
not holding
lien in the cadre at the tim
me of declaration of the
supplementar
ry result. The Ministry reiter
rated the same position
vide its subse
equent communication dated 2
20.03.2025.
21. It was
further submitted that the M
Ministry had informed the
UPSC that th
he Unreserved vacancy which
remained unfilled in the
LDCE, 2017,
owing to the non-availability
of Shri Satyendra Kumar
in the cadre
for promotion following term
mination of his lien, had
already been
carried forward to the Sectio
on Officers’ LDCE, 2019,
and filled up
. The UPSC maintained that
the question concerning
the validity o
of Shri Satyendra Kumar’s li
en and his eligibility for
appointment
fell within the domain o
of the cadre-controlling
authority, na
amely, the Ministry of Railway
ys, and not the UPSC. It
was further s
submitted that, vide letter date
ed 20.01.2025, the UPSC
had requeste
ed the Ministry to examine and
d determine the status of
Shri Satyend
ra Kumar’s candidature in th
e light of Rule 11 of the
examination
rules, whereupon the Minist
try reiterated its earlier
stand vide let
tter dated 20.03.2025. Accord
ding to the UPSC, its role
was confined
to conducting the examinati
on, declaring the results
JUGAL KISHORE
JUGAL KISHORE
2026.11.02 12:49:43+05'30'
14
Item no.19 (C-3)
and recomm
OA No.3411/20
025
mending qualified candidat
es to the competent
authority, an
d it had acted in accordance
with the applicable rules
and procedur
res.
22. The lea
arned counsel, therefore, con
tended that no cause of
action arose
against Respondent No. 3 a
and that the Applicant’s
claim for issu
uance of a fresh supplementa
ary result was untenable.
Accordingly,
the UPSC prayed that the
Original Application be
dismissed as
s barred by limitation and
devoid of merit, with
exemplary co
osts.
23. Per con
ntra, the learned counsel for R
Respondent Nos. 1 and 2
(Ministry of
Railways/Railway Board), in
n the counter affidavit,
opposed the
averments made by the Appl
icant and submitted that
the Departm
ment of Personnel and T
Training (DoP&T), vide
Notification d
dated 15.09.2021, had notifie
ed the Combined Section
Officers’/Sten
nographers’ (Grade B/Grade-
I) Limited Departmental
Competitive E
Examination for the years 201
16 and 2017 for inclusion
in the Sele
ct Lists of the Section O
fficers’ Grade and the
Stenographer
rs’ Grade of the services spe
ecified therein, including
Category III
, pertaining to the Section
Officers’ Grade of the
Railway Boa
ard Secretariat Service (R
RBSS). The notification
prescribed 0
1.07.2016 and 01.07.2017 a
as the respective crucial
dates for d
etermining eligibility. It wa
as submitted that Shri
Satyendra Ku
umar, at the time his applicati
ion was forwarded to the
UPSC, was co
onsidered eligible under Rule
3 of the said notification,
as he had be
een working as an Assistant
Section Officer (ASO) in
JUGAL KISHORE
JUGAL KISHORE
2026.11.02 12:49:43+05'30'
15
Item no.19 (C-3)
the Railway B
OA No.3411/20
025
Board on the relevant crucial
dates and his lien in the
ASO Grade
of the RBSS had initially
been retained following
acceptance o
f his technical resignation on
31.08.2021. Accordingly,
his candidatu
ure was forwarded to the UPSC
C.
24. It was
further submitted that the
UPSC declared the final
result of the
aforesaid examination on 19
9.09.2022. Subsequently,
it was noticed
d that two candidates, namely
y, Shri Anil Kumar Meena
belonging to
the Scheduled Tribe category
y and Shri Pawan Kumar
belonging to
the Unreserved category, w
whose names had been
recommende
d for inclusion in the Select L
List of 2017, were repeat
candidates, a
as their names had already fi
gured in the Select Lists
of earlier yea
ars. Consequently, the Ministr
ry requested the UPSC to
issue a suppl
ementary list against the said
d vacancies. In response,
the UPSC,
vide letter dated 17.0
07.2023, forwarded a
supplementar
ry list recommending the na
ames of Shri Satyendra
Kumar under
r the Unreserved category and
d Shri Rahul Meena under
the Schedule
ed Tribe category for inclusio
on in the Select List of
2017.
25. The lea
arned counsel further submit
tted that the Applicant’s
representatio
on dated 13.06.2023, seeking
inclusion of his name in
the Select Lis
st of 2017, was forwarded by
the Ministry to the UPSC
vide letter da
ated 06.07.2023 for considerat
tion. However, the UPSC,
vide its com
munication dated 17.07.2023
3, informed the Ministry
that the App
plicant’s request did not fall
within the categories in
which supple
mentary results could be dec
clared after finalisation of
JUGAL KISHORE
JUGAL KISHORE
2026.11.02 12:49:43+05'30'
16
Item no.19 (C-3)
the examinat
OA No.3411/20
025
tion result and, therefore, h
is request could not be
entertained.
The Ministry subsequently iss
sued Office Order No. 56
dated 30.08
8.2023 on the basis of the
e supplementary result
communicate
ed by the UPSC. The Applicant
t’s further representation
dated 02.09
.2024 was also forwarded
to the UPSC vide the
Ministry’s lett
ter dated 11.11.2024, wherein
n it was clarified that Shri
Satyendra Ku
umar had not been promoted
d to the Section Officers’
Grade as he
e was not holding lien in th
he cadre at the time of
declaration of
f the supplementary result.
26. It was,
however, submitted that, du
ring the pendency of the
present pro
oceedings, the Ministry re
e-examined the issue
concerning th
he retention of lien of Shri Sat
tyendra Kumar and found
that such ret
ention was not in accordance
with Rule 1406-A of the
Indian Railw
way Establishment Manua
al. Consequently, the
competent a
uthority decided to withdraw
w and cancel the lien of
Shri Satyend
ra Kumar in the ASO Grade
of the RBSS, which had
been mainta
ined for the period from 04.
.09.2021 to 06.09.2022.
The said deci
sion was communicated to Sh
hri Satyendra Kumar vide
the Ministry’s
s order dated 25.05.2026. In c
consequence thereof, the
Ministry treat
ted his candidature for Categ
gory III of the aforesaid
LDCE as inva
alid and communicated this p
osition to the UPSC vide
letter dated 1
16.06.2026.
27. The lea
arned counsel further submit
tted that, in view of the
aforesaid dev
velopment, the Ministry, vide
letter dated 08.07.2026,
requested th
he UPSC to issue a fresh
supplementary list for
JUGAL KISHORE
JUGAL KISHORE
2026.11.02 12:49:43+05'30'
17
Item no.19 (C-3)
inclusion in th
OA No.3411/20
025
he Select List of 2017 against
the vacancy arising from
the invalidat
tion of the candidature of
Shri Satyendra Kumar.
However, the
e UPSC, vide its letter dated 1
15.07.2026, advised that,
in view of th
he provisions of Section 19(4
4) of the Administrative
Tribunals Act
t, 1985, the matter did not w
arrant any action at that
stage.
28. It was
further contended that the
Ministry had taken the
requisite ste
eps to examine the issue c
concerning the lien and
candidature o
of Shri Satyendra Kumar and h
had ultimately withdrawn
and cancelled
d the retention of his lien up
pon finding it contrary to
Rule 1406-A
A of the Indian Railway Esta
ablishment Manual. The
Ministry had
d also requested the UP
SC to issue a fresh
supplementar
ry list following the invalida
tion of his candidature.
However, no
such list had been issued by
y the UPSC. On the basis
of the aforesa
aid submissions, Respondent
Nos. 1 and 2 maintained
that the fact
ual position had been duly ex
xplained in their counter
affidavit and
prayed that the reliefs soug
ght by the Applicant be
considered in
n accordance with law.
29. In his
rejoinder, the learned cou
unsel for the Applicant
controverted
the submissions made by Re
espondent No. 3 (UPSC)
and submitte
ed that the averments containe
ed in its short reply were
evasive and d
did not constitute a specific de
enial of the material facts
pleaded in th
e Original Application. It was
contended that the UPSC
had merely r
reiterated the facts already p
placed on record by the
JUGAL KISHORE
JUGAL KISHORE
2026.11.02 12:49:43+05'30'
18
Item no.19 (C-3)
Applicant and
OA No.3411/20
025
d that its failure to file a spec
ific para-wise reply could
not be constr
rued to the Applicant’s prejudic
ce.
30. The le
arned counsel further challe
enged the objection of
limitation rai
sed by the UPSC, contending
g that the said objection
was inconsist
tent with its own stand that th
he matter concerning the
candidature o
of Shri Satyendra Kumar was
s still under examination.
It was pointe
ed out that the UPSC, vide l
letter dated 20.01.2025,
had requeste
ed the Ministry of Railways to
examine and determine
the status of
f Shri Satyendra Kumar’s can
ndidature in the light of
Rule 11 of t
the examination rules, where
eupon the Ministry, vide
letter dated 2
20.03.2025, reiterated its earl
ier position. According to
the Applicant
t, these communications dem
monstrated that the issue
had not been
n finally resolved. It was fur
rther submitted that the
material fact
concerning the joining of Shr
ri Satyendra Kumar in an
autonomous
institution, namely, IIT (IS
SM), Dhanbad, and its
implications
for the retention of his lien
came to the Applicant’s
knowledge on
nly through the RTI disclosure
es furnished by the UPSC
on 01.07.20
025. The Applicant, therefor
re, contended that the
limitation obj
jection had to be examined
in the light of the said
disclosure an
nd the nature of the grievanc
ce raised in the Original
Application.
31. The lea
arned counsel also submitted
that the UPSC had failed
to explain h
how the candidature of Shri
Satyendra Kumar was
considered i
in conformity with Rule 1
11 of the examination
notification d
dated 15.09.2021 and Rule
1406-A of the Indian
JUGAL KISHORE
JUGAL KISHORE
2026.11.02 12:49:43+05'30'
19
Item no.19 (C-3)
Railway Estab
OA No.3411/20
025
blishment Manual. It was con
ntended that, despite the
Ministry havi
ng forwarded the relevant in
nformation regarding the
resignation a
nd lien of Shri Satyendra Kum
mar, the UPSC proceeded
to recomme
end his name in the supp
plementary result dated
17.07.2023.
The Applicant further quest
tioned the stand of the
UPSC that his
s case did not fall within the c
circumstances warranting
the declarati
on of a supplementary resul
lt, particularly when the
Commission
itself had acknowledged tha
at supplementary results
could be co
nsidered where candidates
already qualified in an
earlier LDCE
were recommended again in t
the final result. According
to the Applic
cant, the UPSC had failed to
o adequately explain the
applicability o
of the said criteria to the facts
of the present case.
32. In vie
ew of the aforesaid subm
missions, the Applicant
maintained t
hat the objections raised by
Respondent No. 3 were
untenable an
nd that the failure of the res
spondents to resolve the
issue concer
ning the eligibility of Shri S
Satyendra Kumar and to
issue a fresh
h supplementary list had adv
ersely affected his claim
for inclusion
in the Select List of 2017. T
The Applicant accordingly
reiterated the
e reliefs sought in the Origina
al Application and prayed
that the same
e be allowed.
33. We ha
ve given our thoughtful co
nsideration to the rival
submissions,
examined the documents on
record, and perused the
judgment of
f the Hon’ble Supreme Cou
urt in Civil Appeal No.
6707/2013 d
ated 12.08.2013 – Manoj Ma
anu & Another (supra).
JUGAL KISHORE
JUGAL KISHORE
2026.11.02 12:49:43+05'30'
20
Item no.19 (C-3)
The ratio of t
OA No.3411/20
025
this judgment fairly and squa
rely covers the facts and
circumstance
es of the instant OA on all coun
nts.
34. We hav
ve observed that the issue o
of lien of Shri Satyendra
Kumar is tot
tally irrelevant, as he had res
signed from the Railway
Service and
joined IIT (ISM), Dhanbad,
Jharkhand, a fact which
was known t
o both the respondents, nam
ely, the UPSC as well as
the Ministry
y of Railways. We are flo
oored, flummoxed and
flabbergasted
d that when the Ministry of
Railways, vide its letter
dated 06.07.
2023, had already informed th
he UPSC beforehand that
the lien of Sh
hri Satyendra Kumar had alre
eady been terminated on
06.09.2023,
then why did the UPSC in
nclude his name in the
supplementar
ry list dated 17.07.2023? N
ow that Shri Satyendra
Kumar has n
not joined, the doors are now
w open for the Applicant,
Shri Parvendr
ra Kumar, the next meritoriou
us candidate in the list, to
be considered
d for appointment as Section
Officer in the Select List
of 2017.
35. In the
light of the above, we are o
of the considered opinion
that the bala
nce of convenience in the ins
stant OA clearly lies with
the Applicant
t. The instant OA has merit,
deserves to be allowed,
and is accord
dingly allowed. We, therefore,
direct the UPSC to issue
a supplemen
tary list for Category III, inc
cluding the name of the
Applicant. W
We also direct the Ministry o
of Railways to consider
including the
e name of the Applicant in t
the Select List of 2017.
Needless to
mention, the Applicant wo
ould be eligible for all
consequentia
l benefits, including seniorit
ty and fixation of pay.
JUGAL KISHORE
JUGAL KISHORE
2026.11.02 12:49:43+05'30'
21
Item no.19 (C-3)
However, the
OA No.3411/20
025
ere will be no payment of bac
k wages or salary on the
principle of “N
No Work, No Pay”. MAs, if any
y, are also disposed of in
the same term
ms. However, there will be no
order as to costs.
(Dr. Sumeet
Member (
/jk/
t Jerath) (Har
(A)
rvinder Kaur Oberoi)
Member (J)
JUGAL KISHORE
JUGAL KISHORE
2026.11.02 12:49:43+05'30'