Mere empanelment in a replacement list confers no indefeasible right to appointment against abolished or reduced vacancies.

The applicants applied for Group 'D' posts in North Eastern Railway (NER) under Advertisement No. NER/RRC/D/2007/1 dated 06.12.2007

Although the applicants successfully cleared the Physical Eligibility Test, written exam, medical examination, and document verification, they were placed in a "20% extra replacement panel" and were not offered appointments because their merit was lower than the last selected candidate

Out of 4,549 advertised vacancies, only 4,087 were filled; the respondents claimed 500 vacancies for Trackmen were surrendered by the Construction Division due to the abolition of posts

The applicants previously approached the Tribunal and High Court, leading to this fresh adjudication after the High Court remanded the matter on 17.05.2024 to determine the legality of surrendering posts and the applicability of the Dinesh Kumar Kashyap precedent

1. Whether the ratio in Dinesh Kumar Kashyap v. South East Central Railway (2019) regarding the mandatory filling of vacancies from replacement panels is applicable to a different recruitment cycle (2007)

2. Whether the respondents illegally changed the terms of the advertisement midway by surrendering 500 advertised vacancies

3. Whether empanelment in a replacement list creates an indefeasible right to appointment when vacancies are claimed to exist

The court primarily applied the principle from Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India, which establishes that inclusion in a select list does not confer an indefeasible right to appointment, and the State is not legally bound to fill all vacancies provided it acts bona fide

It relied on Tej Prakash Pathak v. Rajasthan High Court, holding that criteria cannot be changed midway unless the advertisement or rules expressly permit such modifications

furthermore, it applied the doctrine from Ashish Kumar v. Union of India, stating that a select list is not a "reservoir" and cannot be utilized after its validity period has expired

The Tribunal found that the ratio in Dinesh Kumar Kashyap was restricted to the 2010 recruitment cycle and to those who approached the court within a specific timeframe; thus, it could not be extended to the 2007 recruitment

Regarding the reduction of vacancies, the Tribunal noted that Paragraph 14.1 of the original advertisement explicitly stated that vacancies were "provisional" and "liable to be increased or decreased"

Consequently, the surrender of 500 posts by the Construction Division was deemed a valid exercise of administrative discretion permitted by the terms of the recruitment

The Tribunal observed that the respondents acted bona fide by adjusting 341 candidates into other units and that no candidate with lower merit than the applicants had been appointed

Finally, the Tribunal reasoned that since the life of the 2007 selection panel had long since expired, no direction for appointment could be issued at this belated stage

The surrender of posts was held legal as per the advertisement's own stipulations

The Tribunal concluded that the Dinesh Kumar Kashyap precedent did not apply to this case and that the expiration of the panel barred the requested relief. The Original Application was dismissed, and all associated miscellaneous applications were disposed of with no order as to costs