Inclusion in a replacement panel confers no indefeasible right to appointment, especially upon reduction of notified vacancies.

The applicants applied for Group-D posts in North Eastern Railways under Advertisement No. NER/RRC/D/2007/1 dated 06.12.2007

They successfully cleared the physical eligibility test, written exam, medical test, and document verification but were placed in a "20% extra candidate" list (replacement panel) rather than the main select list

Out of 4,549 notified vacancies, 500 Trackman posts belonging to the Construction Division were surrendered/abolished

The applicants contended that since posts remained vacant due to non-joining or medical unfitness of original candidates, they should be appointed as per a previous assurance given in a 2013 order and the precedent set in Dinesh Kumar Kashyap

The respondents argued that the applicants were lower in merit than the last selected candidate, the vacancies were lawfully reduced as per the advertisement terms, and the life of the panel had expired

1. Whether the ratio laid down in Dinesh Kumar Kashyap v. South East Central Railway regarding the appointment of replacement panel candidates is applicable to the 2007 recruitment cycle

2. Whether the respondents acted illegally by reducing/surrendering 500 advertised vacancies midway through the selection process

3. Whether the inclusion of a candidate's name in a replacement panel creates an indefeasible right to appointment

The Court primarily applied the principle from Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India, which establishes that successful candidates do not acquire an indefeasible right to appointment and the State is not under a legal duty to fill all vacancies unless rules specifically indicate so

It relied on Tej Prakash Pathak v. Rajasthan High Court, which permits changing recruitment conditions midway if the advertisement or rules expressly allow such changes and they are not arbitrary

It further considered Dinesh Kumar Kashyap v. South East Central Railway, noting that its relief was restricted to the specific 2010 recruitment cycle and sought by vigilant litigants

Additionally, the court applied the doctrine from Ashish Kumar v. Union of India, stating that a select list is not a permanent reservoir and no relief can be granted after its expiry

The Tribunal reasoned that the Dinesh Kumar Kashyap precedent was cycle-specific (2010) and could not be blanketly applied to the 2007 recruitment

Regarding the reduction of posts, the Tribunal observed that Paragraph 14.1 of the original advertisement explicitly stated that vacancies were provisional and liable to increase or decrease

Since the 500 Trackman posts were abolished by the Construction Division, their surrender was a valid administrative action permitted by the advertisement terms and not a violation of statutory rules

The Tribunal found that the "assurance" claimed by the applicants was merely a conditional statement to consider them if a demand arose, which does not override their lower merit standing

Finally, the Tribunal noted that because the recruitment process concluded in 2014 and the life of the replacement panel had expired, the list had outlived its utility

It held that (i) the Dinesh Kumar Kashyap ratio is inapplicable to this case; (ii) the reduction of vacancies was lawful under the advertisement’s terms; and (iii) placement in a replacement panel confers no vested right to appointment, especially after the panel's expiry

No costs were awarded