Selected candidates in a replacement panel possess no indefeasible right to appointment against abolished or reduced vacancies.

The 13 applicants applied for Group ‘D’ posts in the North Eastern Railway under Advertisement No. NER/RRC/D/2007/1 dated 06.12.2007

They successfully cleared the physical eligibility test, written examination, medical examination, and document verification

However, they were placed in a "20% extra candidate" list (replacement panel) rather than the main select list because their merit was lower than the last selected candidate

The applicants alleged that 500 vacancies (specifically Trackman posts) were illegally surrendered midway through the process, and that they should be appointed against remaining vacant seats

The Tribunal originally dismissed a similar OA (No. 831/2013), which was eventually remanded by the Allahabad High Court for fresh adjudication

1. Whether the ratio laid down in Dinesh Kumar Kashyap v. South East Central Railway (2019) is applicable to a recruitment process initiated in 2007.

2. Whether the respondents illegally changed the terms and conditions of the advertisement midway by surrendering 500 notified vacancies.

3. Whether candidates in a replacement panel/waiting list acquire an indefeasible right to appointment when vacancies remain unfilled.

The court primarily applied the principle from Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India (1991), which establishes that inclusion in a select list does not confer an indefeasible right to appointment and the State is not legally bound to fill all vacancies provided it acts bona fide

It relied on Tej Prakash Pathak v. Rajasthan High Court (2024) regarding the "rules of the game" mid-stream change, noting that changes are permissible if the advertisement or rules expressly allow for it

It further distinguished Dinesh Kumar Kashyap v. SECR (2019), noting that the relief therein was restricted to the specific 2010 recruitment and to candidates who were vigilant in approaching the court

It cited Ashish Kumar v. Union of India (2025) for the rule that a select list has a limited life and cannot be treated as a perpetual reservoir for appointments

The court found that the 2007 advertisement specifically stipulated in Paragraph 14.1 that vacancies were provisional and subject to increase or decrease, thereby making the reduction of 500 Trackman posts legally permissible

The respondents provided a bona fide reason for the reduction, explaining that the Construction Division had returned the list as the posts were abolished or no longer required

Regarding the Dinesh Kumar Kashyap precedent, the Tribunal reasoned that its ratio was recruitment-specific (2010) and could not be extended to the 2007 recruitment, especially since the relief was limited to those who approached the court within a specific timeframe

The Tribunal observed that the applicants were lower in merit than those empanelled and that the "life" of the 2007 select list had long since expired, making any direction for appointment at this belated stage a violation of the rights of subsequent applicants from the 2010 and 2012 cycles

It ruled that the reduction of vacancies was within the respondents' rights under the advertisement’s terms and that the Dinesh Kumar Kashyap ratio was inapplicable

The Tribunal dismissed the Original Application and all associated Miscellaneous Applications were disposed of