Railways must prepare replacement panels and consider eligible candidates for vacancies caused by non-joining.

The applicants participated in the recruitment process initiated by Eastern Railway through Employment Notice No. 0110 dated 14.12.2010 for erstwhile Group ‘D’ posts carrying Grade Pay of Rs. 1,800.

They qualified in the written examination and, according to the record accepted by the Tribunal, also qualified in the Physical Efficiency Test (PET), but were not ultimately included in the panel or appointed.

Earlier proceedings resulted in directions to publish the complete merit panel, identify candidates who had qualified in the PET and those appointed, disclose filled and unfilled vacancies, and reconsider the applicants’ claims in accordance with Railway Board instruction RBE No. 73/2008.

Pursuant to those directions, the Railway authorities conducted personal hearings and issued speaking orders rejecting the applicants’ claims.

The stated reasons were that no replacement panel had been requisitioned by the Railway Administration, preparation of such a panel was discretionary, the panel had expired after two years under RBE No. 121/2005, and the remaining vacancies had been adjusted against subsequent recruitment notifications.

Whether the respondents’ refusal to prepare and operate a replacement panel for candidates who did not join against Employment Notice No. 0110 was contrary to RBE No. 73/2008 and the principles laid down in Dinesh Kumar Kashyap.

Whether the respondents could rely on the subsequent Railway Board instruction, RBE No. 06/2014, the alleged expiry of the panel, and subsequent recruitment notifications to deny consideration of the applicants’ claims arising from the 2010 recruitment process.

Whether the applicants were entitled to consideration for appointment against vacancies arising from non-joining candidates or, if those vacancies had been adjusted in subsequent recruitment cycles, against supernumerary posts.

The Tribunal proceeded under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

RBE No. 121/2005 prescribed recruitment through written examination, PET and medical examination, required preparation of the panel according to merit, and ordinarily limited the panel’s currency to two years, subject to extension for administrative exigencies.

RBE No. 73/2008 directed that candidates for document verification be called in a number 20% above the notified vacancies to avoid shortfall; where finally empanelled candidates did not join, a replacement panel equal to the number of non-joining candidates was to be supplied, subject to verification by the Chief Personnel Officer and preservation of reservation-wise representation.

The Tribunal relied on Dinesh Kumar Kashyap & Ors. v. South East Central Railway & Ors., (2019) 12 SCC 198, which held that refusal to appoint candidates from a replacement panel despite available vacancies, without cogent reasons, was arbitrary; although empanelment does not create an absolute right to appointment, it creates a right to fair consideration and prevents arbitrary disregard of the panel.

RBE No. 06/2014, which prohibited replacement panels in later recruitment cycles, was treated as prospective and inapplicable to the 2010 selection.

The Tribunal found that the respondents had admitted that the applicants had cleared both the written examination and PET, and that the recruitment process produced 8,373 empanelled candidates against 9,602 notified vacancies in at least one of the cases considered.

The respondents had not furnished complete particulars of candidates who joined, candidates who did not join, or vacancies remaining unfilled; instead, they stated that the vacancies had been taken into account in subsequent recruitment cycles.

Applying RBE No. 73/2008 and Dinesh Kumar Kashyap, the Tribunal held that the respondents could not defeat the applicants’ claims merely by asserting that no replacement panel had been requested or that preparation of such a panel was discretionary.

Administrative discretion had to be exercised reasonably and could not be used to justify inaction where vacancies existed and eligible candidates were available.

RBE No. 06/2014 could not govern a selection initiated in 2010, and the panel’s normal two-year currency could not be invoked to prejudice applicants who had pursued their claims through continuing litigation.

Since the respondents had failed even to prepare a replacement panel and had not established that all vacancies had lawfully ceased to exist, the impugned speaking orders were found inconsistent with the governing instructions and precedent.

It directed the respondents to determine the vacancies arising from non-joining candidates against Employment Notice No. 0110, prepare a replacement panel on merit and provide appointment to the applicants if they were otherwise eligible.

If the relevant vacancies had been adjusted against subsequent recruitment notifications, the respondents were directed to create supernumerary posts/vacancies and consider the applicants against them.

The entire exercise was to be completed within three months from receipt of a certified copy of the order.

All connected OAs were disposed of with no order as to costs.