Railways Must Resolve Recruitment Vacancy Diversion and PwBD Allotment Claims Per Current Board Guidelines

The sixteen applicants, candidates for Level-1 posts under Centralized Employment Notice (CEN) No. 01/2019, challenged their exclusion from provisional part panels and the refusal of appointments by the South Eastern Railway.

They alleged that the respondents failed to provide disability category-wise empanelment and failed to utilize the statutory 1% reservation for the visually impaired (including blind and low vision) as required under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPWD) Act, 2016.

During the pendency of the litigation, the Railway Board issued new guidelines dated 16.12.2024 and 20.03.2026 regarding the diversion of vacancies to lower medical categories and the adjustment of leftover candidates who were higher in merit but medically classified as B2-C1.

1. Whether the applicants are entitled to appointment in Level-1 posts based on their merit in the visually impaired category and the recent Railway Board guidelines.

2. Whether the respondents complied with Section 34 of the RPWD Act, 2016, regarding reservation and backlog of vacancies for persons with benchmark disabilities.

Section 34 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, which mandates reservation for persons with benchmark disabilities.

The Railway Board’s administrative instructions (Letter No. E(NG)11/2023/RR-1/63 dated 16.12.2024 and Letter No. E(NG)11/2013/RR-1/83 dated 20.03.2016), which provided for the extension of the validity of panels, adjustment of leftover B2-C1 medical standard candidates, and the transfer of PwBD candidates to other Railway Recruitment Cells (RRCs) where suitable vacancies exist.

The Tribunal observed that the Ministry of Railways had revised its policy during the litigation to accommodate leftover candidates and fill unfilled vacancies from CEN 01/2019.

The court noted that the new circulars specifically address the grievances of PwBD candidates by allowing their transfer to other RRCs if suitable vacancies for their sub-disability are unavailable in their parent RRCs.

Consequently, the Tribunal determined that the primary relief sought by the applicants—consideration for appointment—should first be evaluated by the executive and administrative authorities under these updated guidelines.

The court found the pending Miscellaneous Application (MA) to be premature as the administrative process under the new circulars was yet to be exhausted.

The respondents are ordered to consider the applicants' cases within two months from the receipt of the order. All pending MAs were disposed of with no order as to costs.