Discriminatory application of recruitment criteria across regional boards under a common authority violates Article 14.

In brief

The question

1. Whether the rejection of the Petitioner’s candidature constituted hostile discrimination under Article 14, given that other RRBs under the same Ministry accepted similarly situated candidates?

The court held

The High Court held that the Tribunal’s order suffered from perversity and that the Petitioner was a victim of hostile discrimination

It also directed

It quashed and set aside the CAT order dated 23.10.2024

Finding that the facts regarding discrimination were essentially admitted, the Court determined that remitting the matter to the Tribunal would serve no purpose

The Court allowed the writ petition and issued a writ of mandamus directing the Respondents to issue an appointment letter to the Petitioner within four weeks

01Facts

The Petitioner, an Indian Army veteran with over 16 years of service, applied for Non-Technical Popular Category (NTPC) posts under Centralized Employment Notice (CEN) No. 01/2019

p. 2

Paragraph 10.2 of the notice stipulated that personnel to be released from the Armed Forces on or before 31.03.2020 were eligible for Ex-Servicemen (ESM) reservation

p. 2, 12

Although the Petitioner applied for premature retirement in 2018, he was actually discharged on 30.04.2020—one month after the cut-off

p. 3

After qualifying for the exams, his candidature was rejected during document verification for failing to meet the cut-off date

p. 3

The Petitioner alleged hostile discrimination, noting that Railway Recruitment Boards (RRBs) in Guwahati and Bilaspur had appointed similarly situated candidates (e.g., Mukesh Anand) who were also discharged after the cut-off

p. 3, 13, 16

The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) dismissed his plea, holding he had made a false declaration regarding his discharge date and failed to meet the advertisement's eligibility criteria

pp. 1-2

02Issues

i.1. Whether the rejection of the Petitioner’s candidature constituted hostile discrimination under Article 14, given that other RRBs under the same Ministry accepted similarly situated candidates?

p. 16, 17

ii.2. Whether the Tribunal’s order was perverse for failing to adjudicate the specific plea of discrimination despite it being raised and not disputed by the Respondents?

p. 13, 22

iii.3. Whether the Respondents could legally supplement the reasons for the Petitioner's rejection (by invoking Condition 10.4) through supplementary affidavits during the litigation process?

p. 20, 21

03Law Applied

The Court applied the principle of Equality before Law under Article 14, which forbids unreasonable classification and requires a rational nexus between classification and the statutory object

p. 14, 16

It relied on L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, establishing that High Courts may exercise judicial review over Tribunal decisions in cases of manifest error or perversity

p. 9, 10

The Court strictly followed the doctrine from Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner, which mandates that the validity of a statutory order must be judged solely by the reasons mentioned within the order itself and cannot be improved by fresh reasons in subsequent affidavits

p. 20

Furthermore, it applied the rule from Shivaji Balaram Haibatti v. Avinash Maruthi Pawar that courts and parties cannot travel beyond the scope of their pleadings

p. 11

Provisions in the judgment · 2 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 Section 5 Section 28

04Reasoning

The Court observed that all RRBs operate under the unified authority of the Railway Board and Ministry of Railways; therefore, recruitment parameters must be applied uniformly

p. 17

It found that while the Petitioner was rejected for a one-month delay in discharge, RRB Guwahati and Bilaspur had accepted candidates discharged after the 31.03.2020 cut-off under the same CEN

p. 16, 17

This differential treatment constituted "unreasonable classification" and hostile discrimination

p. 17

The Court critiqued the CAT for ignoring this specific plea of parity, which was documented in the pleadings and not denied by the Respondents, characterizing this omission as "perversity"

p. 22

Additionally, the Court rejected the Respondents' attempt to introduce a new ground for rejection—failure to provide an NOC from a subsequent civil employer (Delhi Police) under Condition 10.4—noting that this reason was absent from the original rejection order dated 22.03.2023

p. 18, 20

Following Mohinder Singh Gill, the Court held that public orders cannot be "improved" via counter-affidavits once challenged in court

p. 21

05Holding

The High Court held that the Tribunal’s order suffered from perversity and that the Petitioner was a victim of hostile discrimination

p. 22, 23

It quashed and set aside the CAT order dated 23.10.2024

p. 23

Finding that the facts regarding discrimination were essentially admitted, the Court determined that remitting the matter to the Tribunal would serve no purpose

p. 23

The Court allowed the writ petition and issued a writ of mandamus directing the Respondents to issue an appointment letter to the Petitioner within four weeks

p. 23

LawLens.Jharkhand High Court

Original Court PDF