Union Of India vs. Alok Kumar

NON-REPORTABLE
2025 INSC 1091
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO………..………………OF 2025
(ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 17844 OF 2023)
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. …APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
ALOK KUMAR …RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
VIJAY BISHNOI, J.
Leave granted.
2. This appeal arises from the judgment and order dated
06.02.2023 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Gulshan Kumar Arora
Date: 2025.09.09
17:42:47 IST
Reason:
in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 12755 of 2021 (“ impugned
1

requisite test” [ Emphasis S upplied ]
Clause 5 of the Master Circular says that the duration of
training period and the syllabus for the various categories of
Group ‘C’ staff are provided in Chapter I, Section B of the
Indian Railway Establishment Manual, 1989 (“ Railway
Manual ”). In the said Railway Manual, the duration of
training period has been mentioned for each category of
Group ‘C’ posts and for the post of SSE, the duration of
training is provided as one year, i.e. 52 weeks. Further, Para
103 of Chapter I, Section B of the Railway Manual provides
definitions of, inter alia, an “ ” or a “ ” as
apprentice trainee
well as the term “ which read as under:
direct recruitment”
“( iv ) An “apprentice” or a “trainee” means a person undergoing
training with a view to employment in railway service, who draws
pay, leave salary, subsistence allowance or stipend during such
training but is not employed in or against a substantive vacancy in
the cadre of a branch of deptt. On satisfactory completion of his
training he is eligible for appointment of probation in a substantive
vacancy but no guarantee of such appointment is given.
( v ) “Direct recruitment” means the recruitment to the Group ‘C’
service of any person not already in the service of the railways or
any person in railway service who may be permitted to apply for
appointment subject to possession of requisite qualifications along
with outsiders according to the procedure laid down for
recruitment.”
3

In the Railway Manual, it has also been specified that
the training period for any specific post is to be decided by
Zonal Railways and pursuant to that, the Ministry of Railways
vide RBE No.11/2010 dated 15.01.2010 published the
Revised Training Module.
4. The Centralized Employment Notice No.02/2014 dated
20.09.2014 (“ Employment Notice ”) was issued by the RRB,
Muzaffarpur inviting applications from eligible Indian
Nationals for, inter alia , the post of SSE, whereby the suitable
candidates were to be recruited by way of a written
examination conducted by the RRB. In the said
advertisement, it was specifically mentioned that the selected
candidates will have to undergo training wherever prescribed
for the posts. The said condition is reproduced hereunder:
“ 1.10. Selected candidates will have to undergo training
wherever training is prescribed for the post.”
5. Pursuant to the aforesaid Employment Notice, the Respondent
appeared in the written examination along with other
4

candidates and on being successful, he was offered
provisional appointment vide letter dated 14.09.2016 in
Group ‘C’ category for the post of Apprentice/Trainee SSE
(Electrical/Drawing) against the direct recruitment quota and
the Respondent was allotted to the Construction Organization
in the East Central Railway, Mahendrughat, Patna. The said
provisional appointment letter issued to the Respondent
clarified that he would be eligible for retention in service
subject to successful completion of training and if his
performance in the field of training during the probation
period was found to be unsatisfactory, his services were liable
to be terminated. The said condition specified in the
provisional appointment letter issued to the Respondent is
reproduced hereunder:
“ ii . You will be on probation for a period of 02 (two) years. If your
performance in the field of training during probation period is
found unsatisfactory, your service is liable to be terminated.”
[Emphasis
Supplied]

6. It is not in dispute that the Respondent has completed 46
weeks of training out of the 52-week training prescribed for
SSEs. On 06.11.2017, the Respondent, along with two other
5

trainees, who were deputed to the Construction Organization,
was sent to the Zonal Rail Training Institute, Muzaffarpur
(“ ZRTI ”) for a three-week training in General and Subsidiary
Rules (“ ”) from 07.11.2017 to 27.11.2017. After the
G&SR
completion of the said training, an examination was
conducted and as per the result of the same , which was
published on 26.12.2017, the Respondent had failed to clear
the said examination. It is pertinent to note that the other two
trainees, who were sent for training along with the
Respondent, had cleared the examination with 31 other
trainees. As per the various Circulars issued by the
Appellants from time to time, any trainees belonging to
General and OBC categories, who fail to clear such
examination in the first chance, can be given a second chance
subject to non-payment of stipend. The Respondent, being an
OBC category trainee, requested the Chief Administrative
Officer (Construction), East Central Railway, Mahendrughat,
Patna, to allow him to undertake a second attempt to clear
the G&SR training without payment of stipend. The
authority concerned allowed the Respondent to undergo a
6

second round of training from 06.03.2018 to 26.03.2018. It is
evident from the result published on 26.04.2018 that the
Respondent yet again failed to clear the examination held at
the end of the G&SR training course.
7. Consequently, his services were terminated vide Office Order
No. NG/06/2019 dated 04.01.2019 issued by the Senior
Personnel Officer (Construction), East Central Railway,
Mahendrughat, Patna. Further, vide letter dated 26.02.2019,
the Respondent was also directed to refund the stipend
amount of Rs.1,53,354/-, which was disbursed to him for the
second training attempt due to administrative inadvertence,
even when, while allowing the second attempt to the
Respondent to clear the G&SR training, it was specified that
he would not be able to draw any stipend.
8. Being aggrieved with the termination order dated 04.01.2019
and the order for recovery of stipend dated 26.02.2019, the
Respondent approached the Central Administrative Tribunal,
Patna Bench (“CAT, Patna”) by way of an Original
Application No. 50/479/2019 (“ OA ”) mainly on the ground
7

that four other apprentices/trainees namely, Rohit Raj,
Narendra Meena, Navneet Kumar and Nawal Kishore Jaiswal,
who were selected along with him, had been granted
permanent posting after completion of only 46 weeks of
training, without undergoing G&SR training at ZRTI, unlike
the Respondent. The CAT, Patna vide order dated 30.07.2019
dismissed the said OA and upheld the order of termination of
the Respondent dated 04.01.2019 with an observation that
the Appellants/Department may sympathetically consider any
request made by the Respondent herein for waiver of
repayment of stipend already paid to him while undergoing
training for the G&SR course for the second time.
8.1 The CAT, Patna rejected the Respondent’s allegations of
discrimination amongst similarly placed persons, observing
that two other trainees, apart from the Respondent, who had
been allotted to the Construction Organization, were also sent
for training at ZRTI. Accordingly, it could not be accepted that
the Respondent alone was chosen for a special punitive
training.
8

8.2 Taking note of the fact that all the candidates except one
passed the requisite exam in the first attempt and in the
second attempt, all the candidates except two cleared the
exam, the CAT, Patna concluded that the training/test was
not particularly taxing and that by no stretch of imagination,
could it be inferred that the Respondent was sent for this
training with any prior intention to make him fail.
8.3 Further, the Tribunal observed that the Respondent had tried
to mislead it by repeatedly mentioning the completion of
“ Field Training ” as a mandatory requirement for
appointment, while the provisional appointment letter
referred to the Respondent’s performance in the “ Field of
Training ” during the probation period.
9. The Respondent filed CWJC No.19255 of 2019 before the High
Court, challenging Order dated 30.07.2019. However, the said
case was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated
17.09.2019 with liberty to make a representation before the
Railway Board as requested by the Counsel for the
Respondent.
9

10. Thereafter, the Respondent moved Review Application No.
50/51/2019 before the CAT, Patna, seeking recalling of the
Order dated 30.07.2019. This application also came to be
dismissed vide order dated 25.10.2019 on the ground of there
being no error apparent on the face of the record or mistake
of fact in the decision. Further, the Miscellaneous Application
No. 50/422/2019 filed by the Respondent was also rejected
on similar grounds vide order dated 30.01.2020.
11. Aggrieved by the foregoing, the Respondent filed CWJC No.
12755 of 2021 before the High Court assailing orders dated
30.07.2019, 25.10.2019 and 30.01.2020 passed by the CAT,
Patna. The High Court framed the following issue:
“2. Core issue is that whether the petitioner is required to pass
any prescribed departmental examination for the post of Senior
Section Engineer or not?”
12. The Appellants herein were directed by the High Court on
23.01.2023 to furnish a personal affidavit as regards the
existence of any mandate for such examination.
Consequently, the Appellants filed a personal affidavit dated
10

for which he/she has been recruited. Further, Clause 3
specifies that the qualifying examination at the end of the
initial training of the directly recruited non-gazetted staff
must necessarily be a written test. Clause 3.1 says that the
candidates should be warned at the time of their recruitment
that their retention in service will be dependent upon them
successfully completing the training and passing the requisite
test.
It was further submitted that the Railways vide RBE No.
11/2010 dated 15.01.2010 had published the Revised
Training Module for the 52-week training programme. The
said 52-week training encompassed 8 different modules, and
the candidates had to go for each and every module for a
specific period/weeks. In the event that a candidate failed to
clear the training in any module in the first attempt, he/she
could be provided a second attempt without stipend if the
candidate belongs to General and OBC categories. In cases of
candidates belonging to SC/ST categories, a second attempt
can be provided with stipend and such candidates are also
entitled to a third chance to clear the training without
12

stipend. It was further submitted by the learned Counsel that
in the Employment Notice as well, it had been clarified that
the selected candidates will have to undergo training wherever
training has been prescribed for the posts and in the
provisional appointment letter issued to the Respondent,
again, it was clarified that during the probation period of two
years, if his performance in the field of training was found
unsatisfactory, his services were liable to be terminated.
13.1 Ms. Singh has argued that from a combined reading of the
provisions of the Master Circular, the Employment Notice and
the provisional appointment letter, it is apparent that after
completion of training, every selected candidate is required to
undertake an examination to ascertain whether he/she has
successfully completed the training or not. The learned Counsel
has contended that it is not in dispute that the Respondent had
failed to clear the G&SR training despite being provided two
chances, and therefore, there was no illegality in terminating
his services as per the provisions of the Master Circular
governing the field. It has further been argued that in the
impugned judgment, the High Court has failed to appreciate
13

the said position and erred in allowing the Writ Petition filed by
the Respondent.
14. The learned Counsel for the Appellants has further argued that
the learned Single Judge has erred in observing that the
Appellants have not prescribed any “departmental examination”
for the purpose of giving permanent status against the post of
SSE. It was argued that as a matter of fact, no such
“departmental examinations” are conducted for the trainees
and only the “training examinations” are being conducted and
the same is evident from the results which have been published
after conducting such “training examination”, wherein the
Respondent appeared twice but failed. It was argued that the
said results were placed on record before the Writ Court in the
counter-affidavit to the Writ Petition, but the learned Single
Judge had failed to take note of the same and recorded an
erroneous finding that the Appellants had not prescribed any
“departmental examination” for the purpose of giving
permanent status against the post of SSE. The learned Counsel
has also submitted that it is a well-known fact that the
“departmental examinations” are only held in cases of
14

16. Per contra , Mr. Amit Sharma, the learned Counsel appearing
for the Respondent, has submitted that the High Court had
not committed any illegality in passing the impugned
judgment in the facts and circumstances of this case.
The learned Counsel has contended that the Appellants
illegally terminated the services of the Respondent, despite
him having successfully completed 46 weeks of training. It was
argued that although he had failed to clear the G&SR training,
but the fact remained that four other candidates, who were
selected with the Respondent, were never sent to undergo the
G&SR training and were directly appointed only after
completion of 46 weeks of training. It was further argued that
the termination order dated 04.01.2019 was highly
discriminatory, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of
the Constitution and had rightly been set aside by the High
Court.
17. The learned Counsel has further submitted that the
termination order dated 04.01.2019 was passed in
contravention of the terms and conditions of the Revised
16

completion of the initial period of training for the non-
gazetted direct recruits in various categories of Group ‘C’
posts is an important prerequisite for the absorption of a
trainee in the post for which he/she has been recruited. It
further provides that at the end of the initial training of a
directly recruited non-gazetted trainee, there must be a
written test and the recruited candidates should be warned
that their retention will be dependent on them successfully
completing the training and passing the requisite test.
18.2 The instruction no. 1.10 of the Employment Notice, under
which the Respondent had applied, clearly provided that the
selected candidates will have to undergo training wherever it
had been prescribed for the concerned post.
18.3 Further, even in the provisional appointment letter issued to
the Respondent, it was specifically stipulated that if his
performance in the field of training during probation was
found unsatisfactory, his services were liable to be terminated.
18.4 The Respondent had completed 46 weeks of training and
thereafter, he was sent to undergo the G&SR training of three
weeks, initially from 07.11.2017 to 27.11.2017. After
18

completion of the said training, an examination was
conducted, however, he failed to clear the said examination.
18.5 On his request, the Respondent was again sent for the G&SR
training from 06.03.2018 to 26.03.2018 with a condition that
he will not get any stipend for undertaking the G&SR training
for the second time. After completion of the said training, the
Respondent appeared in the examination but again failed to
clear the said examination.
18.6 The Respondent was not the only one sent for the G&SR
training, rather several other candidates were also sent for the
said training both when the first time and the second time the
Respondent appeared for the G&SR training. All candidates
except the Respondent passed the examination when the
Respondent appeared for the first time in the said G&SR
training. When the Respondent appeared in the examination
after availing the second chance to undergo the G&SR
training, as many as 34 trainees appeared along with the
Respondent and out of which, 31 cleared the examination
except the Respondent and two other trainees.
19

18.7 When the Respondent failed to clear G&SR training in two
attempts, the Appellants terminated his service vide order
vide
dated 04.01.2019 and directed him order dated
26.02.2019 to refund the stipend amount of Rs.1,53,354/-,
which was disbursed to the Respondent while undergoing the
G&SR training for the second time.
19. If we go through the above facts, it is clear that the condition
of appearing in the written training test for every candidate
provisionally appointed as an SSE after clearing the
recruitment examination conducted by the RRB is provided in
the procedure governing the recruitment of directly recruited
non-gazetted Group ‘C’ posts. The learned Counsel for the
Respondent has failed to point out any other rule, circular or
provision of law which governs the subject of recruitment of
persons to non-gazetted Group ‘C’ posts. When the procedure
for recruitment of SSEs issued through the Master Circular
specifically provides for a written test after completion of the
initial training period, the High Court has erred in recording
a finding that no departmental examination is prescribed for
the purpose of conferring permanent status against the post
20

of SSE. The learned Counsel for the Appellants has rightly
pointed out that departmental examinations are conducted
only for the purpose of promotions and not for the purpose of
recruitment/appointment.
20. We do not find any merit in the submission of the learned
Counsel for the Respondent that the Master Circular is not
applicable in the case of recruitment to the post of an SSE.
The reliance of the learned Counsel for the Respondent on
RBE No. 11/2010 dated 15.01.2010, whereby the Revised
Training Module for the 52-week training programme was
published, is also misplaced. As observed earlier, in the
Railway Manual, it has been specifically provided that the
training period for any specific post is to be decided by the
Zonal Railways and pursuant to the said provision, this
Revised Training Module dated 15.01.2010 was issued. In any
manner, this Revised Training Module cannot supersede the
Master Circular, wherein it was specifically provided that
every candidate has to pass the written test after completion
of their initial training. Otherwise also, it is difficult to
comprehend how, in the absence of any test at the end of the
21

initial training period, it can be possible to ascertain whether
a candidate has acquired sufficient training or not.
21. The provisional appointment of the Respondent as a Trainee
SSE was, in fact, only a recruitment and his permanent
appointment in service on the post of an SSE was subject to
the successful completion of his training. A three-Judge
Bench of this Court in Prafulla Kumar Swain v. Prakash
,
Chandra Misra , reported in (1993) Supp (3) SCC 181 has
defined the meaning of the words “ recruitment ” and
“ appointment ” as under:
“29. At this stage, we will proceed to decide as to the meaning
and effect of the words “recruitment” and “appointment”. The
term “recruitment” connotes and clearly signifies enlistment,
acceptance, selection or approval for appointment. Certainly,
this is not actual appointment or posting in service. In
contradistinction the word “appointment” means an actual act
of posting a person to a particular office.
30. Recruitment is just an initial process. That may lead to
eventual appointment in the service. But, that cannot
tantamount to an appointment. […]”
[Emphasis Supplied]

The judgment in Prafulla Kumar Swain (supra) has
also been followed by this Court in Ashok Ram Parhad v.
State of Maharashtra, reported in (2023) 18 SCC 768.
22

22. The other contention of the learned Counsel for the
Respondent that the four trainees namely, Rohit Raj,
Narendra Meena, Navneet Kumar and Nawal Kishore Jaiswal,
were permanently appointed only after 46 weeks of training
and had not completed the 52-week training period is also
incorrect. In the counter affidavit to this SLP, the Respondent
has stated that he sought an information from the Appellants
under the RTI in respect of three trainee SSEs, namely Rohit
Raj, Navneet Kumar and Narendra Meena, and he got the
information that those trainees were not sent for the training
at ZRTI, despite the fact that those three trainees had only
completed 46 weeks of training and not the entire 52-week
training period. The Respondent has further stated in the
counter affidavit that the Respondent was forced to undergo
the G&SR training, however, the said three trainees were not.
However, from the information supplied by the Appellants in
response to the RTI filed by the Respondent, it is more than
clear that all the three trainees, regarding whom the
Respondent had sought information through RTI, had
23

completed the 52-week training period before being
permanently appointed to the post of SSE.
23. In light of the above discussion, we are of the firm view that
when the Respondent had failed to clear the G&SR training
twice and as such, had failed to successfully complete the 52-
week initial training programme, the Appellants have not
committed any illegality in terminating the services of the
Respondent, pursuant to the procedure prescribed for the
purpose of permanent appointment of SSEs. Resultantly, the
impugned judgment passed by the High Court is set aside
and the Writ Petition filed by the Respondent is dismissed.
24. It is also to be noted that although while sending the
Respondent for the second time to clear the G&SR training, it
was clarified that he would not be entitled to any stipend, yet
as per the Appellants, the same was paid to the Respondent
due to administrative inadvertence. Be that as it may be, it is
not the case of the Appellants that the stipend amount was
paid to the Respondent due to misrepresentation or fraud,
and therefore, we are of the view that in the peculiar
circumstances of this case, the said demand raised by the
24

Appellants against the Respondent for the recovery of the
stipend cannot be justified. The same is, therefore, rejected.
25. With these observations, the present appeal is disposed of.
26. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
……………………………J.
(J.K. MAHESHWARI)
…………………………. J.
(VIJAY BISHNOI)
NEW DELHI,
th
Dated: 09 SEPTEMBER, 2025
25