Ministerial Staff in RPF governed by Railway Establishment Code are eligible for departmental promotion to Chief Law Assistant.

The applicant, originally appointed as a Constable in the Railway Protection Force (RPF) in 2007, was medically decategorized in November 2024 and subsequently absorbed into the ministerial cadre as a Junior Clerk.

In January 2026, the respondents issued a notification for selection to the post of Chief Law Assistant (Level-07) under a 60% departmental promotion quota.

The applicant, possessing an LL.B. degree, applied but was allegedly excluded on two grounds: first, that his qualification was not properly updated in his service records, and second, the respondents contended that as an RPF employee, he was ineligible for Railway Administration posts.

The applicant sought an order commanding the respondents to permit his participation in the selection process.

1. Whether a medically decategorized RPF employee absorbed into the ministerial cadre is governed by RPF Rules or the Indian Railway Establishment Code for the purpose of departmental promotion.

2. Whether the applicant is eligible to appear for the selection of Chief Law Assistant (Level-07) under the 60% departmental quota.

Rule 276 of the RPF Rules, 1987, which stipulates that while the Force may have its own ministerial cadre, the method of recruitment and conditions of service for such posts shall be in accordance with the Indian Railway Establishment Code.

The court also distinguished the precedent set in Alok Kumar vs. Union of India (Patna High Court CWJC No. 3994/2017, affirmed by the Supreme Court in SLP (C) Nos. 27773–27774/2017), which held that active RPF Constables are governed by RPF-specific service conditions.

The court reasoned that the respondents' reliance on Alok Kumar was misplaced because that case dealt with a Constable whose service conditions were strictly under RPF regulations.

In contrast, the applicant in the present case is a "medically decategorized employee" currently serving in a "ministerial cadre".

Under Rule 276(2) of the RPF Rules, 1987, the service conditions for ministerial staff—including Senior Clerks—are expressly governed by the Indian Railway Establishment Code rather than RPF-specific restrictions.

Therefore, the applicant’s status as ministerial staff potentially qualifies him for the departmental quota selection intended for railway ministerial personnel.

The Tribunal found that the respondents failed to consider the applicability of Rule 276 when rejecting the applicant’s eligibility based solely on his RPF origins.

The court directed the applicant to submit his documents and a representation on the rule position within one week, and directed the respondents to pass a reasoned order within three weeks thereafter. Crucially, the Tribunal granted interim relief by ordering that the applicant be provisionally permitted via interim order to appear in the examination for the post of Chief Law Assistant, subject to fulfilling other eligibility criteria.