The court upheld the CAT's direction for administrative examination of vacancy positions, clarifying that candidates on the replacement list must be considered unless barred by delay or conduct.

Order :

Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J.

1. Since all the matters arise out of the same cause of action, and although the Union of India/Railways has filed these petitions being aggrieved by separate Original Applications, the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, Jabalpur (hereinafter referred to as “CAT”) has adjudicated all the Original Applications analogously by a common order dated 06.03.2024 leading case bearing Original Application No.203/12/2019 and 49 analogous cases. Accordingly, all the writ petitions are clubbed together, heard together, and are being disposed of by this common order.

2. The Union of India/Railways appears to be aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed by the learned CAT, wherein the CAT has decided the matter on the basis of the judgment rendered in Dinesh Kumar Kashyap & Others v. South Eastern Central Railway & Others, Civil Appeal Nos.11360–11363 of 2018 (arising out of SLP (C) Nos.29668–29671 of 2017) along with Civil Appeal No.11364 of 2018 (arising out of SLP (C) No.6165 of 2018). In the said decision, the Hon’ble Supreme Court directed the Union of India to consider the cases of the petitioners who had approached the CAT and to grant them appointment over and above the first selected candidates of the selection process which commenced in the year 2012, but immediately below the candidates of the 2010 selection list for the purpose of seniority. The Supreme Court further held that such petitioners would be entitled only to notional benefits from the date of deemed appointment for the purposes of pay fixation and seniority. Directions were also issued to the South Eastern Central Railway (for short, ‘SECR’) to comply with the judgment and to offer appointment to all eligible candidates within three months. Pursuant thereto, the Railways published a provisional part panel of 115 candidates on 20.08.2019, out of which 91 candidates were stated to have qualified. Thereafter, in Civil Appeal No.11360 of 2018, the Hon’ble Supreme Court further clarified that the benefit of its judgment would extend to all persons who had filed petitions before the CAT.

3. Most of the private respondents herein had filed their Original Applications before the CAT prior to the passing of the order dated 01.03.2019; most of them had approached the CAT earlier, whereas a few filed their petitions thereafter. On merits, however, their cases are similarly situated to those of the petitioners in Dinesh Kumar Kashyap (supra), who had filed SLPs before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, and therefore the private respondents’ claims deserved to be allowed by the CAT. In fact, on merits, the private respondents herein, who have preferred applications before the CAT, stand on a better footing than those who had been granted relief by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In Dinesh Kumar Kashyap (supra), the Original Applications were decided on 06.03.2024, directing the Railways to examine the vacancy position under SECR’s Employment Notification No. 02/2010 dated 15.12.2010 and, if vacancies existed, to consider the petitioners for appointment to Group ‘D’ posts under the replacement quota as per RBE No. 73/2008 dated 17.06.2008, and thereafter to issue appointment orders to all candidates found suitable and fit.

4. Being aggrieved by the order dated 06.03.2024 passed by the CAT, the Union of India/Railways has filed the present writ petitions seeking to quash and set aside the said order in all connected matters.

5. For the sake of convenience, WPS No. 6291 of 2024 is treated as the lead case, and the facts thereof are taken as the basis