Termination for failing proficiency tests valid; no right to alternate employment after clerical error in offer.

The applicant, a visually handicapped person belonging to the Scheduled Caste community, was provisionally appointed as a Stenographer Grade-III in North Frontier Railway on 10.08.2016, following a special drive for physically handicapped candidates

His provisional appointment order dated 28.02.2017 (Annexure A6) stipulated that he must qualify a stenography proficiency test within two years and, if he failed, he would be offered an appointment in another post

He joined on 15.03.2017 (Annexure A8)

Although his performance was rated as "very good" to "outstanding" in confidential reports (Annexure A9)

he failed the proficiency test on 12.07.2019

Given his SC and PWD status, he was granted a second opportunity, which he also failed on 15.10.2020

Consequently, his services were terminated by Annexure A1 order dated 19.11.2020

His appeal (Annexure A12) for continued service or alternate employment was rejected by Annexure A2, with the respondents claiming the alternate employment clause in Annexure A6 was a clerical error and no such provision existed

1. Whether the termination of the applicant's services due to failure in the stenography proficiency test, despite the presence of a clause for alternate employment in his provisional appointment order, was legal and valid

2. Whether the clause in the provisional appointment order providing for alternate employment upon failure to qualify the proficiency test was binding on the respondents, especially when it was not reiterated in the final appointment order and claimed to be a clerical error

The Tribunal primarily applied the contractual conditions stipulated in the appointment letters

It considered the validity of a clause in a provisional appointment order versus a subsequent final appointment order, especially when the employer claimed the clause was a clerical error and not "in vogue"

The Tribunal also referenced Railway Board RBE No. 90 of 2009 dated 25.5.2009, which discontinued the policy of providing alternate appointments to medically failed empaneled candidates selected through RRB/RRC

The court analyzed the terms of the applicant's appointment, noting the explicit condition that his continuance as Stenographer Grade-III depended on qualifying the proficiency test within two years

It acknowledged the clause in the provisional appointment order (Annexure A6) that promised alternate employment upon failure

However, the court found that this clause was not incorporated into the subsequent, original appointment order (Annexure A7) dated 15.03.2017

The respondents argued, and the court accepted, that the clause regarding alternate employment in Annexure A6 was a "clerical mistake" and that such a provision was not in force at the relevant time, citing Railway Board RBE No. 90 of 2009 which discontinued alternate appointments for medically failed candidates

The court highlighted that minimum qualification for a stenographer, including speed, cannot be compromised, even given the applicant's otherwise good performance and SC/PWD status

Since the applicant failed the proficiency test twice, and the clause for alternate employment was deemed a clerical error not reiterated in the final order, his claim for alternate employment could not survive

The Original Application was dismissed

The court held that there was no illegality in the termination order (Annexure A1), as the applicant failed the mandatory proficiency test twice

The claim for alternate employment, based on a clause in the provisional appointment order (Annexure A6), could not be sustained because the clause was not present in the final appointment order (Annexure A7) and was determined by the respondents to be a clerical error and not "in vogue" as per Railway Board policy