Post preference creates no vested right where appointment depends on vacancies and administrative exigencies.

The applicants responded to the Railway Recruitment Cell’s notification dated 19 December 2010 for various erstwhile Group ‘D’ posts carrying Grade Pay of ₹1,800, including Helper-II Mechanical C&W.

Applicant No. 1, Jitendra Kumar, was successful in the written examination, Physical Efficiency Test, document verification, and medical examination.

By letter dated 25 March 2013, he was proposed for appointment as Helper-II Mechanical C&W at Agra; however, his appointment letter dated 6 July 2013 offered him appointment as Trackman (Engineering).

After his representations were rejected, Applicant No. 1 challenged the decision before the Tribunal. In an earlier O.A. No. 1081/2013, the respondents were directed to decide his representation, which they did by order dated 7 November 2013.

The respondents stated that vacancies in Mechanical C&W were unavailable when the panel was operated and that, pursuant to directions dated 17 May 2013, candidates could be allotted against vacancies then existing, including Trackman posts.

On 22 July 2026, counsel for the applicants stated that the matter was not being pressed on behalf of Applicants Nos. 2 and 3. The Tribunal therefore considered the case only in relation to Applicant No. 1.

Applicant No. 1 had appeared before the respondents and received the appointment letter but did not join as Trackman.

1. Whether Applicant No. 1 acquired an enforceable or vested right to appointment as Helper-II Mechanical C&W merely because he had indicated that post as a preference and was initially proposed for it?

2. Whether the respondents acted illegally or arbitrarily by offering Applicant No. 1 appointment as Trackman, carrying the same Grade Pay of ₹1,800, on the basis of vacancies and administrative requirements existing at the time of actual appointment?

3. Whether the order dated 7 November 2013 rejecting Applicant No. 1’s representation warranted interference by the Tribunal?

The proceedings were brought under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

The Tribunal applied the express terms of the recruitment notification, which provided that a candidate’s preference for a category, department, or place of posting would not confer any right to appointment against that particular post; that appointment would depend on the availability of posts at the time of actual appointment; and that posting could be made according to administrative requirements without assurance of a particular department, division, or place.

The governing principle was that a candidate who participates in a selection process subject to such conditions cannot subsequently claim a vested or enforceable right to appointment against a preferred post, particularly where the administration demonstrates that the post was unavailable at the relevant time.

The Tribunal also recognised the respondents’ authority to utilise the recruitment panel against existing vacancies pursuant to the General Manager’s directions dated 17 May 2013.

The Tribunal found that Applicant No. 1 had applied for several posts and that his preference for Helper-II Mechanical C&W was expressly subject to the conditions of the recruitment notification.

Although he was initially proposed for that post by the letter dated 25 March 2013, the respondents established that vacancies in Mechanical C&W were not available when the panel was actually operated.

The General Manager had authorised the Divisional Railway Managers to allocate candidates according to vacancies existing at that time and administrative exigencies.

The offer of Trackman was therefore treated as an exercise of duly delegated administrative power, particularly because Trackman was also a Group ‘D’ post carrying the same Grade Pay of ₹1,800.

The Tribunal held that the applicant’s preference and provisional proposal did not override the notification’s express reservation of administrative discretion.

Since Applicant No. 1 had accepted the recruitment conditions, he could not insist on appointment to the preferred post when it was unavailable.

His failure to join after receiving the Trackman appointment letter also did not establish any illegality in the respondents’ action.

The respondents lawfully offered him appointment as Trackman in accordance with the recruitment notification, the prevailing vacancy position, and the delegated administrative authority.

The challenge to the order dated 7 November 2013 was rejected, and O.A. No. 1555 of 2013 was dismissed as devoid of merit.

The interim order, if any, was discharged, and all connected miscellaneous applications were disposed of.

The proceedings stood dismissed as not pressed with respect to Applicants Nos. 2 and 3.