##PAGE1##

[2026:RJ-JP:2051-DB]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 370/2015

Shiv Singh S/o Shri Sahib Singh aged about 53 years, Shivaji

colony, Road No.7, House No.106, Near Santosh Coaching

Centre, Kota (Rajasthan) (since deceased)

1. Suman Choudhary W/o Late Shri Shiv Singh Choudhary,

aged about 45 years

2. Neetu Singh D/o Late Shri Shiv Singh Choudhary, Aged

about 20 years,

3. Amit Singh S/o Late Shri Shiv Singh Choudhary, aged

about 19 years

4. Mohit Singh S/o Late Shri Shiv Singh Choudhary, aged

about 17 years (minor) through his mother Suman

Choudhary W/o Late Shri Shiv Singh Choudhary.

All R/o House No.106, Shivaji Colony, Near Maszid, Gali No.7,

Near Railway Station, Kota (Rajasthan)

----Petitioners

Versus

1. Union of India through the General Manage, West Central

Railway, Jabalpur (MP)

2. The Chief Works Manager, Carriage & Workshop, West

Central Railway, Kota

3. The Deputy C.M.E. (R&M) West Central Railway, Kota,

Rajasthan

4. The Works Manager (C), Office of CWM, West Railway, Kota

Division, Kota, Rajasthan.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. P.P. Mathur

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pawan Pareek

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI CHIRANIA

Judgment

1. Date of conclusion of Arguments 15.01.2026

2. Date on which the judgment was reserved 15.01.2026

3. Whether the full judgment or only operative

Full

part is pronounced

4. Date of pronouncement 29.01.2026

(Uploaded on 02/02/2026 at 05:20:31 PM)

(Downloaded on 15/02/2026 at 06:37:19 AM)

[2026:RJ-JP:2051-DB] (2 of 11) [CW-370/2015]

Per, Justice Ravi Chirania:-

1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner by which a

challenge has been made to order dated 19.03.2012 passed by

learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Bench at Jaipur

(hereinafter referred to as 'learned Tribunal' for short) in

Original Application No.46/2006 titled as Shiv Singh Vs. Union of

India whereby the O.A. was dismissed. After filing of the writ

petition the petitioner has expired and the legal representatives

were taken on record. The learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.

P.P. Mathur, in brief, stated that the petitioner was appointed in the

respondent railway on the post of Helper Khalasi after considering

his qualifications as required for the post in the year 1981. The

petitioner belongs to the Jat community which falls in the OBC

category.

2. Learned counsel submitted that after screening, the

petitioner was absorbed in Group-D post as per the applicable

provisions and he was given the regular appointment on the post

in the year 1984. He submitted that the petitioner has no

knowledge as to how or on what basis he was shown as member

of the reserved category at the time of his appointment in Group-

D and how he was granted subsequent promotion to Grade-III and

Grade-II also under the ST category. He further submitted that he

never claimed or submitted any document of the ST category and,

therefore, whatever appointment and the promotions were done

by the respondents were on the basis of the record which they

maintained on their own in which they themselves recorded the

caste of the petitioner as ST, reserved category, and therefore he

has not made any concealment or not done any misrepresentation

(Uploaded on 02/02/2026 at 05:20:31 PM)

(Downloaded on 15/02/2026 at 06:37:19 AM)

[2026:RJ-JP:2051-DB] (3 of 11) [CW-370/2015]

in securing the appointment and taking subsequent promotions in

the respondent Railway Department.

3. Learned Counsel submitted that the petitioner, after having

served the respondent for 20 years, was issued a show-cause

notice on 23.05.2005 wherein it was alleged that he took the

appointment by declaring himself to be a candidate of the ST

category. After the show-cause notice he was also issued the

illegal charge-sheet with same allegations and after conducting

the departmental proceedings he was removed from the services

by impugned order dated 17.07.2007. Against the order of

removal from the service the petitioner filed the departmental

appeal which was