Facts
The 35 applicants applied for Group ‘D’ posts in North Eastern Railway under Advertisement No. NER/RRC/D/2007/1 dated 06.12.2007
Source reference: p. 5Although the applicants cleared the Physical Efficiency Test, written exam, and medical test, they were not appointed because their merit was lower than the last selected candidate
Source reference: p. 6, 11The applicants alleged that the respondents illegally reduced/surrendered 500 vacancies (Trackman posts) midway through the process
Source reference: p. 8, 11The applicants had previously filed an OA (Diary No. 03196/2019) which was dismissed as time-barred, a decision later upheld by the Allahabad High Court in Writ A No. 14610 of 2020 on 06.01.2021
Source reference: p. 13-15The applicants filed the present OA seeking appointment based on a new Railway Board Circular, RBE No. 30/2022
Source reference: p. 4-5Issues
1. Whether the issuance of RBE No. 30/2022 creates a fresh cause of action for candidates from a 2007 recruitment cycle whose previous claims were already dismissed as time-barred.
Source reference: p. 132. Whether the applicants are entitled to appointment against unfilled or surrendered vacancies after the expiry of the selection panel’s currency.
Source reference: p. 12-14Law Applied
The Tribunal applied the principle of res judicata and the finality of litigation regarding time-barred claims
Source reference: p. 14RBE No. 30/2022 dated 15.03.2022, which stipulates that replacement panels can only be utilized during the currency of the panel and when no fresh panel is available
Source reference: p. 14Dinesh Kumar Kashyap v. South East Central Railway (2019) 12 SCC 798, noting that benefits of such judgments are typically restricted to those who approached the court within a reasonable timeframe
Source reference: p. 8, 12Reasoning
The Tribunal found that the applicants were attempting to re-agitate a dead claim that had already been adjudicated and dismissed as barred by limitation in 2019 and 2021
Source reference: p. 13-14The court reasoned that RBE No. 30/2022 did not create a new right for the applicants; rather, it merely clarified the conditions for utilizing replacement panels during their active life
Source reference: p. 14Since the life of the 2007 recruitment panel had long expired and multiple subsequent recruitment cycles (2010, 2012) had been completed, the applicants—who were in the 20% extra/waiting list—had no vested right to appointment
Source reference: p. 11, 14The Tribunal emphasized that a panel's expiry is fatal to appointment claims unless a writ was filed during its currency, which was not the case here
Source reference: p. 15Holding
The Tribunal dismissed the Original Application, holding that no relief could be granted because the currency of the selection panel had ended and the matter was previously settled by the High Court
The court directly answered that RBE No. 30/2022 offers no support to the applicants as it apply only to "current" panels
Source reference: p. 15The prayer for publishing a replacement panel for the 2007 advertisement was rejected. No costs were awarded
Source reference: p. 15Original Court PDF
VIJAY KUMARvsNORTH EASTERN RAILWAY
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in