No indefeasible right to appointment from extra/wait-list unless replacement panel requisitioned within validity period; reserved candidates on merit count as UR; employer discretion to fill vacancies absent arbitrariness.

ORDER

Per : Hon’ble Shri Lok Ranjan, Member (A)

The present Original Application had been filed against the non-consideration of the Applicant for appointment to the post of Senior Section Engineer (SSE) (P-Way/Bridge), in the North Western Railway (NWR) in pursuance to the Centralised Employment Notice (CEN) No.01/2012 dated 10.03.2012 issued by the Ministry of Railways, Government of India – although some posts had remained unfilled due to certain candidates from the Panel of candidates recommended for appointment vide letter dated 19.03.2013 not having joined ; and despite the Applicant purportedly being at serial number-1 in the Wait-List.

2. The relevant matrix of facts that emerged from the pleadings in the present O.A. is summarized briefly hereafter. In pursuance of the CEN No.01/2012 dated 10.03.2012, the Railway Recruitment Board (RRB) Ajmer had conducted the selection process, for the vacant posts in the North Western Railway (NWR) the West Central Railway (WCR), inter alia for the vacancies of SSE(PW/B) – in all 17 (8 UR, 2 SC, 1 ST and 6 OBC) vacancies in the NWR and total 02 (1 UR and 1 OBC) vacancies in the WCR. The Applicant had appeared at the written examination dated 16.09.2012 for the same post as a general category candidate. Vide the Result of the said written examination that was declared on 19.02.2013, the RRB Ajmer had provisionally published w.r.t. the vacancies in the post of SSE(PW/B), the roll numbers of 19 candidates, with an ‘Extra’ List of 07 candidates, as eligible for document verification. After conducting the same from 16.03.2013 to 19.03.2013, RRB Ajmer had on 22.03.2013 published/ issued for the post of SSE(PW/B) inter alia, a panel of selected candidates – against i9 posts (UR-08, SC-02, ST- 01, OBC-07 withheld UR-01) in all, i.e. equal to the number of notified vacancies of SSE(PW/B). Although recommended to NWR and WCR for appointment, some such selected / recommended candidates did not join eventually ; and their offers of appointment were cancelled.

3. In the light of the factual matrix encapsulated herein above, the Applicant was aggrieved by broadly two aspects. Firstly, while the RRB Ajmer had recommended names of 16 candidates to the NWR Headquarter, Jaipur for the vacancies in the post of SSE(PW/B), it included names of 7 candidates from different reserved (ST/SC/OBC) categories against the 8 UR vacancies – which was alleged to be a mass irregularity in the selection. Secondly, Railway Board instructions vide RBE No.6/2003 dated 08.01.2003, addressed to all the GMs, Zonal Railways and Chairman of all RRBs, had directed that in case of non-joining of the selected candidates, replacement panels be asked for. The Applicant, based on the information from various Divisions, had contended that out of the candidates recommended by the RRB Ajmer for the vacant posts of SSE(PW/B) in NWR, in all 8 candidates – 4 in Jaipur, 2 in Jodhpur and 2 in Bikaner – had not joined ; further, that their offer of selection as such had been cancelled ; and further, that the Divisional Railway Managers (DRMs) concerned had asked for sending of replacement panels. The Applicant stated that he had made a representation to the General Manager, NWR Jaipur, praying thereby that he be given appointment on one of the posts of SSE(PW/B) that had remained unfilled thus. However, the GM NWR Jaipur, who was purportedly bound to ask for replacement panel in view of the instructions of the Ra