Provisional Select List Confers No Statutory Right to Appointment; Cancellation Due to Exclusion of Eligible Candidates Upheld: CAT Mumbai - 2025-08-22

CAT Mumbai Upholds Railway's Decision to Cancel Flawed Selection Panel, Citing No Vested Right for Provisionally Selected Candidates

Mumbai: The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Mumbai Bench, has dismissed an application challenging Central Railway's decision to cancel a selection panel for the post of Staff & Welfare Inspector. The bench, comprising Hon’ble Mr. Shri Krishna (Member A) and Hon’ble Mr. Umesh Gajankush (Member J), ruled that candidates on a provisional select list do not acquire a statutory or indefeasible right to an appointment.

The Tribunal affirmed that an administrative authority is justified in scrapping a selection process if it discovers that eligible candidates were wrongfully excluded, thereby violating constitutional principles of fairness and equality.

Background of the Case

The case was brought forward by three railway employees, led by Ganesh Surendra Pardeshi, who were selected for the post of Staff & Welfare Inspector following an exam held on June 27, 2020. A provisional panel featuring their names was published on November 5, 2020. However, instead of receiving promotion orders, they were informed via an order dated June 15, 2021, that the entire selection process was cancelled from the eligibility list stage due to administrative errors. A fresh examination was subsequently scheduled.

The applicants challenged this cancellation, arguing it was illegal, arbitrary, and violated principles of natural justice as it was done without a proper show-cause notice.

Key Arguments

Applicants' Contentions: - The applicants, represented by Advocate Shri Vicky A. Nagrani, argued that the decision to cancel the selection was taken without providing them a fair hearing. -

They contended that calling for representations after the decision to cancel was already made amounted to a "post-decisional hearing," which is merely an "eye wash" and contrary to Railway Board instructions. -

They asserted that the candidates who were later added to the eligibility list did not meet the probation criteria outlined in the original notification, making their inclusion erroneous.

Central Railway's Defense: - The respondents, represented by Dr. V.S. Masurkar, defended the cancellation by stating that it was necessitated by a representation from an employee, Shri Avinash Kumar Sinha, and 11 others who were wrongly deemed ineligible. -

The Railway administration admitted its error in interpreting the probation period requirement, which led to the wrongful exclusion of these 12 candidates from the selection process. -

They argued that proceeding with the flawed selection would have been a serious violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Citing a Railway Board circular, they maintained that scrapping the process was the correct course of action when eligible candidates are left out due to administrative error. -

Furthermore, the respondents pointed out that the applicants had participated in the subsequent written test held on July 17, 2021, thereby acquiescing to the new process.

Tribunal's Reasoning and Judgment

The Tribunal, in its order authored by Hon’ble Mr. Umesh Gajankush, carefully examined the facts and legal precedents. It made several key observations that formed the basis of its decision.

No Accrued Right from Provisional Panel: The Tribunal emphasized a crucial point of service jurisprudence: a provisional list does not create a vested right. The judgment noted:

"Even otherwise, eligibility list dated 11.03.2020 and select list dated 05.11.2020 clearly states that the same were provisional in nature. Meaning thereby, merely by inclusion of the applicants name in the provisional list and the provisional select panel, no statutory right was accrued in favour of the applicants."

Citing Supreme Court Precedents: The bench relied on landmark Supreme Court rulings, including Shankarsan Dash Vs. Union of India and East Coast Railway and Another Vs. Mahadev Appa Rao , which established that while the State cannot act arbitrarily, successful candidates do not have an indefeasible right to be appointed. The decision not to fill up vacancies, if taken for bona fide reasons like correcting a flawed process, is judicially permissible.

Participation in Subsequent Exam: A significant factor in the Tribunal's decision was the applicants' participation in the new examination. The order revealed that two of the three applicants had also qualified in the subsequent written test.

"Since in pursuance of the decision of the written test (second time) on 17.07.2021, the applicants have participated and out of three, two were shown to be successful also for further process of selection and, therefore, right of participation in the selection process was availed by the applicants."

Final Decision and Implications

Ultimately, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the Railway's decision. It concluded that the action to cancel the panel was based on the competent authority's satisfaction that the process was flawed by the exclusion of eligible candidates. The application was dismissed.

This judgment reinforces the principle that while administrative actions are subject to judicial review, courts will not interfere with decisions taken in good faith to rectify procedural irregularities and ensure fairness to all eligible candidates, especially when the complainants do not hold a vested right to the post.