Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 13325

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Mr. Manish Garg, M (J), Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, M (A)
Pavan Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Union of India through The General Manager, Northern Railway – Respondent
O.A. No. 3078 of 2025

Advocates:
For the Applicants: Mr. Yogesh Sharma
For the Respondents: Mr. Sona Kumar

Procedural fairness mandates documented justifications for cancellation of selections post-qualification, upholding legitimate expectations of candidates.

Headnote:(A) Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Section 19 - Challenges to selection process - Applicants successfully completed training and were waiting posting orders - Cancellation of the selection process without issuing show cause notices amounting to violation of principles of natural justice - Despite procedural irregularities, mere rectifications should not penalize successful candidates - The panel and resultant orders are quashed, and applicants reinstated as Junior Engineers with required benefits. (Paras 12-14)

(B) Natural Justice - The principle that the applicants, once selected, had a legitimate expectation to being posted, absent documented proof of cancellation procedure followed constitutes an unlawful exercise of authority. (Paras 11-12)

Facts of the case:
Applicants, having qualified a selection process, completed their training yet faced cancellation of the selection leading to application for reinstatement. Respondents failed to follow proper procedures for selection cancellation.

Findings of Court:
The court affirmed that procedural fairness must guide administrative actions and arbitrary cancellations are impermissible.

Issues: Whether the cancellation of the selection constituted a violation of procedural fairness.

Ratio Decidendi: The panel cannot be impugned without adequate grounds and show cause notices to impacted candidates.

Result: OA allowed; cancellation orders quashed; applicants reinstated.

Table of Content
1. the applicants completed training and awaited posting following the selection process. (Para 1 , 2)
2. arguments raised focus on violations of natural justice and the arbitrary nature of cancellation. (Para 3)
3. the court emphasized the need for documented procedures in cancellation decisions. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
4. the cancellation orders lacked justifications and were deemed unlawful. (Para 12 , 13 , 14)
5. conclusion orders enforced reinstatement of applicants as junior engineers. (Para 15 , 16)

ORDER

Hon’ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A):

By way of instant OA filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 , the applicant is seeking the following reliefs:

“(i) That the Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to pass an order of quashing the impugned order dated 30.04.2025 and order dated 6.5.2025, declaring to the effect that the same are illegal and arbitrary and consequently, pass an order directing the respondents to restore the panel and post the applicants as JE as they have already completed their training of 12 months with all the consequential benefits.

(ii) That the Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to pass an order of quashing the impugned order dated 29.7.2025 only to the limited extend not to include the vacancies (JE/Elect.) which have already been notified by the DRM, Moradabad.

(iii) Any other relief which the Hon’ble Tribunal deem fit and proper may also be granted to the applicant along with the costs of litigation.”

FACTS OF THE CASE AS STATED BY THE APPLICANT

2. Applicant nos.1 and 3, belonged to UR category, are presently working on the post of Technician-II/Power and the applicant no.2, belonged to SC category, is working as Technician-II/TL in Moradabad Division.

2.1. The respondents issued a letter/notice dated 04.10.2023, addressed to all subordinates in charge, to fill up four posts of Junior Engineer/Electrical General against 25% Intermediate Apprentice quota, mentioning eligible categories, educational qualification, upper age limit and condition of service. (Annexure-A-5

2.2. In pursuance to the said letter/notice dated 04.10.2023, the applicants submitted their applications and a written examination for the post of JE was held on 28.12.2023 in which the applicants had appeared. The applicants along with12 candidates were found eligible for further assessment by Selection Board vide letter dated 29.12.2023 (Annexure A-4) against the four vacancies (UR-3 and SC-01).Thereafter vide letter dated 05.02.2024 (Annexure A-3 issued by the respondents, the applicants along with another candidate were placed on panel. In the said letter dated 05.02.2024, the respondents have also stated that promotion order will be in effect after completion of 2 years service in feeder grade i.e. MCM/Gen. case is pending against them and passing the pre- requisite service training/course & medical examination if any applicable for the post in question.

2.3. Thereafter, vide office notice dated 14.02.2024 (Annexure A- 6) issued by the respondents, the applicants along with another candidate were nominated for training as they were placed on panel of JE/Elec, which reads as under:

S.No. Name & Post		Present station	On promotion for training nominated station
1.	Rahul Chamoli. Tech-1 A.C.C.	A.C.C. Dehradun	A.C.C. Dehradun
2.	Gautam Kumar. Tech-1- Power	T.S-West Moradabad	T.S-West Moradabad
3.	Pradeep. Tec-2/TL	T.L. Moradabad	T.S-East Moradabad
4.	Pavan Kumar-Tech- 1/Power	T.S-West Moradabad	Pump Moradabad

2.4. The respondents issued a training Calendarfor the year 2024- 2025 vide letter dated 21.06.2024, addressed to the Principle, Centralized Electrical Training Institute, Central Railway Thakurli, vide which the applicants were nominated for the said training for 24 weeks from 01.07.2024 to 13.12.2024 (Annexure-A-7). Thereafter, the applicants reported to DRM'S office Moradabad after completion of training and further remained under training at nominated stations upto 15.02.2025 and reported

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 13325

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALMr. Manish Garg, M (J), Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, M (A)Pavan Kumar – AppellantVersusUnion of India through The General Manager, Northern Railway – RespondentO.A. No. 3078 of 2025

Procedural fairness mandates documented justifications for cancellation of selections post-qualification, upholding legitimate expectations of candidates.

Cases Referred (1)

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Mr. Manish Garg, M (J), Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, M (A)
Pavan Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Union of India through The General Manager, Northern Railway – Respondent
O.A. No. 3078 of 2025