CAT Directs UPSC To Recommend Next Candidate For 2017 Railway Select List After Rival’s Lien Is Cancelled

The applicant, an Assistant Section Officer in the Railway Board Secretariat Service (RBSS), appeared in the 2016–2017 Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) for the Section Officers’ Grade.

In the Unreserved category, the last selected candidate had 304 marks; the applicant and Shri Satyendra Kumar each had 303 marks.

The UPSC later recommended Shri Satyendra Kumar in a supplementary result.

The applicant challenged that recommendation, arguing that Kumar had resigned and joined IIT (ISM), Dhanbad, and was ineligible under the examination rules.

During the proceedings, the Ministry withdrew and cancelled Kumar’s retained lien, treated his candidature as invalid, and asked the UPSC to issue a fresh supplementary list; the UPSC did not do so.

The applicant sought a direction requiring the UPSC to include his name in a fresh supplementary list and the Ministry to include him in the 2017 Select List.

The application was brought under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985; the UPSC relied on Section 21 to object to limitation.

Rule 11 of the DoP&T notification dated 15 September 2021 made a candidate ineligible for appointment on the examination result in specified circumstances, including resignation or severance from the service, subject to the rule’s terms.

The Ministry relied on Rule 1406-A of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual in cancelling Kumar’s retained lien.

The Tribunal applied the Supreme Court’s decision in Manoj Manu & Another v. Union of India & Others, Civil Appeal No. 6707/2013, dated 12 August 2013, which treated the exclusion of candidates in circumstances involving repeat/common recommendations and available vacancies as discriminatory, and directed consideration of the next candidates.

The Tribunal accepted that the Ministry had ultimately found Kumar’s retained lien contrary to Rule 1406-A, cancelled it, and treated his candidature as invalid; it had also asked the UPSC for a fresh supplementary list.

It considered the Manoj Manu precedent applicable and reasoned that, once Kumar’s recommendation could not be acted upon, the applicant—whom it described as the next meritorious candidate—could be considered for the resulting vacancy.

The Tribunal criticised the UPSC’s earlier recommendation despite the information concerning Kumar’s resignation and lien, and concluded that the applicant’s claim had merit.

Although limitation was raised by the UPSC, the Tribunal did not set out a separate finding resolving that objection.

It directed the UPSC to issue a fresh supplementary list for Category III including the applicant, and directed the Ministry of Railways to consider including him in the 2017 Select List.

It stated that he would be eligible for consequential benefits, including seniority and pay fixation, but denied back wages or salary under the “No Work, No Pay” principle.

There was no order as to costs.