Unilateral appointment to a category other than the selected post without candidate consent is legally impermissible.

In response to Employment Notification No. 220E/Open Mkt/RRC/2012, the applicant applied for Group ‘D’ posts in Northern Railway

Following a written exam and Physical Efficiency Test (PET), the applicant was empanelled and opted for the post of "Carriage Cleaner" in the Mechanical Engineering Department

Despite being found medically fit for said post and allotted to the Moradabad Division, the respondents issued orders in August 2014 appointing him as a "Trackman" in the Civil Engineering Department

The applicant joined under protest and submitted representations requesting a transfer to his selected post

The respondents contended that vacancies for Trackmen had been pending for several years and the appointments were made for administrative exigencies and smooth train operations

The applicant approached the Tribunal seeking parity with the Coordinate Bench decisions in O.A. No. 1740/2016 and O.A. No. 2307/2018

1. Whether the respondents acted arbitrarily by appointing the applicant to a post (Trackman) different from the one for which he was selected, found medically fit, and had opted (Carriage Cleaner)

2. Whether administrative exigency justifies changing a candidate's category of appointment without prior intimation or obtaining their express consent

The court relied on the principles of administrative fairness and the doctrine of parity, specifically adhering to its own precedents in O.A. No. 1740/2016 (decided on 21.03.2018) and O.A. No. 2307/2018 (decided on 10.07.2018)

These precedents establish that when a recruitment process is initiated for specific categories under an Employment Notification (e.g., No. 220E/Open Mkt/RRC/2012), the administration cannot unilaterally alter the post of a selected candidate without legal justification or the candidate's consent

The Tribunal found that the applicant’s case was "squarely covered" by earlier decisions involving identical facts

It rejected the respondents' plea of administrative necessity, noting that the Railway failed to produce evidence that vacancies for Carriage Cleaners were unavailable at the time of appointment

The court reasoned that even if urgent vacancies existed in the Civil Engineering Department, the respondents were legally obligated to intimate the selected candidates and obtain their consent before diverting them to a different cadre

In the absence of any specific Railway Board rules or instructions permitting such a unilateral change, the respondents' actions were deemed "unsubstantiated" and "untenable"

The Tribunal allowed the O.A. in part based on the parity of reasons established in preceding cases

It directed the respondents to take an appropriate decision to appoint the applicant as a "Carriage Cleaner" in the Mechanical Engineering Department of the Moradabad Division, Northern Railway

The respondents were further directed to grant all consequential benefits pursuant to the 2012 Employment Notification within a period of six months

No order as to costs was made