ORDER

(Delivered by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (Judicial)

Shri Vinod Kumar and Shri Shiv Mangal Prajapati, learned counsel for the applicants and Shri Manoj Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents, were present at the time of hearing.

2. The present original application has been filed seeking following reliefs:

“(i) To issue an order or direction in the suitable nature directing the respondents/ Railway Recruitment Cell Gorakhpur to consider and offer the appointments in favour of the applicants in accordance with the law as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Dinesh Kumar Kashyap as well as in the light of RBE No. 121/2005 and RBE No. 73/2008 issued by the Railway Board.

(ii) To issue any order or direction, which this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

(iii) To award the cost of the application to the applicant.”

3. The instant original application has been filed by the applicants with the prayer to consider their appointment against several posts which they claim to be lying vacant in lieu of the selection process carried out on the basis of Advertisement dated 06.12.2007 and arrange to appoint the applicants in Group D category and permit them to join in their respective posts on which they have been selected within stipulated time fixed by this Hon’ble Tribunal.

The brief facts of the case are that vide Advertisement No. NER/RRC/D/2007/1 dated 06/12/2007, applications were invited for appointment on Group D Posts in North Eastern Railways to which the applicants applied. The applicants appeared in the physical eligibility test followed by the written examination and subsequent state of medical examination and document verification.

The applicants have contended that many candidates included in the selection list either failed to appear for medical examinations, were declared medically unfit, remained absent, or were debarred for various reasons. Despite this, the respondents retained the names of such candidates in the result list, although they were effectively unqualified and should have been removed. Applicants claim to have learned that many selected candidates from the main list had not joined within the stipulated period, which had already expired and therefore, through a representation, they requested reconsideration of these vacancies, especially since some candidates in the panel had failed medical tests or remained absent. However, the respondents did not consider the plea of the applicants.

Further, through the OA, several illegalities and irregularities are alleged to have been committed at the end of the respondents as the applicants have contended that the respondents have changed the terms and conditions of the advertisement midway through the selection process which is not permissible according to law. Allegation has also been made that the entire selection process has been arbitrarily carried out and furthermore the respondents have reduced the number of vacancies midway through the selection process which has inflicted irreparable loss and injury to several candidates and the same is also not permissible according to law. The applicants have also contended that upon non-issuance of the results, the applicants have approached the competent authority of the respondents and got assurance of their selection but no selection has been made.

The OA further contends that earlier, the applicants and other similarly situated candidates had filed O.A. No. 163 of 2013, and the same was decided vide order dated 13.02.2013 in terms of the order passed in another OA No 1669 of 2012 filed by other similarly situated candidates in which the Tribunal directed the respondents to decide their representation of the applicants through a reasoned order and consider their appointment. In response, the respondents stated vide order dated 10.4.2013 and also vide order dated 17.06.2013 that the applicants’ merit rank was below the last selected ca