IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA &

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRADEEP MITTAL ON THE 12 th OF MARCH, 2026 MISC. PETITION No. 3917 of 2025 RAKESH KUSHWAHA S/O SHRI PARAMLAL THROUGH L.R. HIS WIFE SMT. BABITA KUSHAWAHA Versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Arun Kuamr Soni - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Shrikrishna Sharma – Advocate for respondent No.1 and 3.

WITH MISC. PETITION No. 3915 of 2025 RAMSAKHI AHIRWAR Versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Arun Kuamr Soni - Advocate for petitioner.

Shri Piyush Bhatnagar – Advocate for respondent.

MISC. PETITION No. 3918 of 2025 SHANKAR LAL YADAV Versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Arun Kuamr Soni - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Shrikrishna Sharma, learned counsel for respondent No.1 to 3.

MISC. PETITION No. 3921 of 2025 DHARMENDRA RAWAT Versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Arun Kuamr Soni - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Shrikrishna Sharma, learned counsel for respondent No.1 to 3.

MISC. PETITION No. 3923 of 2025 BABULAL SHRIVAS Versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Arun Kuamr Soni - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Shrikrishna Sharma, learned counsel for respondent No.1 to 3.

MISC. PETITION No. 3922 of 2025 KAMLESH KUSHWAHA Versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Arun Kuamr Soni - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Shrikrishna Sharma, learned counsel for respondent No.1 to 3.

ORDER Per. Justice Pradeep Mittal Since the issue involved in these Miscellaneous Petitions is common in nature, all the petitions are being decided by this common order.

2. The petitioners have filed the present Miscellaneous Petitions against the common order dated 01.05.2025 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, whereby the respective Original Applications preferred by the petitioners have been dismissed. The petitioners had approached the learned Tribunal seeking appointment in the Indian Railways in lieu of acquisition of their land for a railway project.

3. The petitioners had earlier filed separate Original Applications before the learned Tribunal challenging the impugned orders therein passed by the respondent authorities, whereby their claims for appointment were rejected. In the said Original Applications, the petitioners prayed for a direction to the respondents to consider their claims for appointment in the Indian Railways under the scheme providing employment assistance to land losers whose lands have been acquired for railway projects. It was contended that under the policy/scheme of the Railways, employment assistance is extended to persons whose lands are acquired for railway projects, and several similarly situated persons have already been granted appointments under the said scheme.

4. The details of the petitioners and the relevant dates relating to their applications and rejection orders are as under:

5. It is the case of the petitioners that the learned Tribunal has dismissed the Original Applications on an erroneous presumption by comparing the cases of the petitioners with O.A. No. 284/2025, which according to the petitioners bears no similarity to the present matters. The petitioners have contended that they are claiming appointment in the Indian Railways under the scheme providing employment assistance to land losers, and that several similarly situated persons whose lands were acquired for railway projects have already been granted appointments under the said policy.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the solitary ground on which the claims of the petitioners have been rejected by the respondents is that at the time of submission of their initial applications the petitioners had not passed the 10th standard examination, which was the minimum educational qualification required under the policy. However, it is submitted that the respondents have failed to take into consideration the subsequent development that the petitioners have now passe