IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, ARUN KUMAR RAI, JJ.
Jitesh Kumar S/o Late Nawal Kishore Singh – Appellant
Versus
The Union of India through the General Manager, South Eastern Railway – Respondent
W.P. (S) No. 4925 of 2025
Decided On : 22-01-2026
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. interlocutory application allowed. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. brief facts of the case presented. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 3. tribunal's dismissal of original application. (Para 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 4. petitioner argues against tribunal's finding. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 5. respondents defend tribunal's order. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30) |
| 6. no need for notice before cancellation. (Para 31 , 32) |
| 7. fresh examination deemed necessary. (Para 33 , 34) |
| 8. judicial review powers outlined. (Para 37 , 39 , 40 , 41) |
| 9. systemic irregularities require cancellation. (Para 45 , 46 , 89 , 93) |
| 10. writ petition dismissed; application disposal. (Para 97 , 98) |
ORDER :
I.A. 7989 of 2025
1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed for deletion of the name of petitioner no.10 namely, Yogendra Prasad from the cause title.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
3. Considering the ground taken in the instant interlocutory application, this Court is of the view that the prayer for deleting the name of the petitioner no.10 namely, Yogendra Prasad from the cause title, requires to be allowed.
4. Accordingly, the prayer made in the instant interlocutory application, is allowed.
5. The name of the petitioner no.10 namely, Yogendra Prasad from the cause title is hereby deleted from the array of the petitioners.
6. In view thereof, I.A. No.7989 of 2025 stands allowed.
7. Office is directed to carry out necessary deletion in the array of petitioners.
Prayer:
8. The instant writ petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is directed against order dated 08.04.2025 passed by learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna in O.A. Nos. 750/19 and analogous cases, for the following reliefs: -
(i) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s) /Order(s) / direction(s) or writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing and setting aside the order dated 08.04.2025 passed in 750 of 2019 by which the prayer of petitioners for quashing and setting aside order dated 18-03-2019 (Annexure-3) issued by Respondent No. 4 i.e. the Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, South-Eastern Railway, Ranchi cancelling the final select list/panel published on 12-11-2018 (Annexure-2) for the post of Goods Guard and for deputing the petitioners for Guard Promotion Training Course has been rejected and the aforesaid Original Applications have been dismissed by the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) Patna Bench, Patna.
(ii) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s) /Order(s) / direction(s) in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to depute the successful petitioners whose name find place in the final select list notified on 12-11-2018 (Annexure-2) for Guard Promotional Training Course at Sini.
(iii) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s) /Order(s) / direction (s) or writ in the nature of prohibition commanding upon the respondents to keep 10 vacancies for the petitioners for the post of Goods Guard for which the petitioners name find place in the final select list.
(iv) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s) /Order(s) / direction (s) in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to grant all the consequential reliefs including arrears of salary and notional seniority, which petitioners have suffered on account of illegal action on the part of respondent authorities due to cancellation of final select list dated 12-11-2018 (Annexure-2).
Brief facts of the case
9. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleading made in the writ petition, needs to be referred herein reads, which reads as under:
10. The Original Applications being O.A. No. 750 of 2019 and analogous cases was filed by the writ petitioners including other similarly situated in-service employees working in Indian Railway for similar relief.
11. The case in brief, is that the petitioners are posted at various places in the state of Jharkhand under South-Eastern Railway Division, Ranchi.
12. While the petitioners were working u
Trivedi Himanshu Ghanshyam Bhai Vs. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation and Ors.
Tajvir Singh and Ors. Vs. State of J&K and Ors.
L. Chandra Kumar Vs. Union of India & Ors.
West Bengal Central School Service Commission vs. Abdul Halim
T.C. Basappa vs. T. Nagappa and Anr.
Benny T.D. & Ors. Vs. Registrar of Cooperative Societies & Anr.
Union of India and Others Vs. O. Chakradhar
Inderpreet Singh Kahlon and Others Vs. State of Punjab and Others
Joginder Pal and Others Vs. State of Punjab and Others
MGB Gramin Bank v. Chakrawarti Singh
P. Mahendran v. State of Karnataka
Kusumam Hotels Private Limited v. Kerala State Electricity Board
Mohinder Singh Gill and another Vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and Ors.
Public employment recruitment must adhere to fairness and transparency principles; systemic irregularities justify cancellation of selection processes. No vested rights exist without appointment lett....
Cancellation of selection and reversion invalid if due to departmental evaluation errors without candidate fault, prior hearing, or inquiry; natural justice violated; innocents protected by equity, l....
Non-speaking cancellation of selection process for technical irregularities without prejudice is arbitrary and invalid; must provide reasons and notice.
(1) Appointment – Normally, it is not for courts to interfere unless process smacks of mala fides – However, right to be considered for public employment being a Fundamental Right, it would be safe a....
In cases of widespread irregularities in selection processes, cancellation of entire selection is justified, as separation of affected candidates is not feasible.
Mere selection in recruitment does not confer indefeasible right to appointment if process tainted by procedural irregularities confirmed by inquiry; authority may bona fide withhold without hearing ....
Procedural fairness mandates documented justifications for cancellation of selections post-qualification, upholding legitimate expectations of candidates.
Cancellation of completed selection process and panel for minor, curable irregularities is arbitrary and disproportionate; unsuccessful candidates estopped from post-result challenges; promotion righ....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.