Facts
The applicant, Satyendra Kumar, was selected for the post of Apprentice Assistant Loco Pilot (DSL/Electrical) and commenced initial training from November 19, 2012, to December 15, 2012, and then from December 20, 2012, to March 30, 2013
Source reference: p.2He was orally informed he failed the written examination during this period.
Source reference: p.2The applicant filed O.A. No. 706/2019, which was dismissed on March 19, 2024, granting him liberty to challenge an order dated June 20, 2019.
Source reference: p.2He then filed O.A. No. 7497/2024, which was later dismissed as infructuous on April 5, 2025, after the respondent issued an order dated April 2, 2025, deciding his representation.
Source reference: p.2This order dated April 2, 2025, is now impugned.
Source reference: p.2The applicant appeared in the second training, where he claims to have secured marks above the cut-off but was still declared failed.
Source reference: p.3He alleges he was only given two chances despite a letter dated October 5, 2006 (RBE No. 145/2006) providing for three chances.
Source reference: p.3The respondents contended that the applicant, belonging to the OBC category, was granted a second chance in terms of RBE No. 145/2006 but failed, and there is no provision for two repeat chances (total of three attempts) for OBC candidates.
Source reference: p.3, p.4Issues
1. Whether the impugned order dated April 2, 2025, is legally sustainable given the applicant's claim of entitlement to a third training chance per RBE No. 145/2006?
Source reference: p.2, p.32. Whether the respondents were justified in denying the applicant a third opportunity (second repeat chance) for Assistant Loco Pilot training?
Source reference: p.3, p.4Law Applied
The court primarily applied Para (b) of RBE No. 145/2006 issued by the Ministry of Railways, which stipulates that trainees/apprentices (other than those covered by the Apprentices Act, 1961) belonging to the OBC category are allowed one repeat chance, totaling two chances, and the second chance is without stipend or other remuneration.
Source reference: p.3, p.4This rule establishes the maximum permissible opportunities for OBC candidates in such training programs.
Source reference: p.4Reasoning
The court analyzed the applicant's eligibility for training chances under RBE No. 145/2006.
Source reference: no citationThe record shows the applicant underwent initial training and failed.
Source reference: p.4Subsequently, in accordance with Para (b) of RBE No. 145/2006, he was granted one repeat chance (making a total of two chances) and again failed in the examination at the end of this repeat training.
Source reference: p.4The court explicitly noted that the applicant, as an OBC category candidate, had already exhausted the maximum permissible opportunities under the extant rules (one initial chance plus one repeat chance).
Source reference: p.4The court found no provision in the applicable Railway Board instructions to grant a second repeat chance (a third attempt) to OBC category candidates.
Source reference: p.4Therefore, the respondent's decision to deny a third chance was deemed consistent with the statutory rules.
Source reference: p.5Holding
The court concluded that the applicant, having availed two chances and failed in both, possessed no legal or vested right to seek a third opportunity contrary to the statutory rules stipulated in RBE No. 145/2006.
The respondents acted strictly in accordance with RBE No. 145/2006, and thus, there was no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order dated April 2, 2025.
Source reference: p.5Accordingly, the Original Application was dismissed at the admission stage.
Source reference: p.5Original Court PDF
Satyendra Kumar v. Union of India and Ors. [Original Application No. 247 of 2026]
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in