Partly allowed¶6

Ram Prakash and 20 Others v. Union of India, Thru. Secy. Govt. of India Ministry of Railway New Delhi and 5 Others

Allahabad HC24 Nov 2025WRIA/13601/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Interim stay of CAT order rejecting diploma-holder technician apprentices' claim for 20% quota in Railway Level-1 recruitment; posts reserved since 2023 to remain reserved.

What did the court decide?

Stay of impugned CAT order dated 26.09.2025; continuation of reservation of posts for petitioners as per interim order dated 31.05.2023. ¶6

Ram Prakash and 20 Others vs Union of India, Thru. Secy. Govt. of India Ministry of Railway New Delhi and 5 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - A No. - 13601 of 2025

¶3

Ram Prakash And 20 Others

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

Union Of India, Thru. Secy. Govt. Of India Ministry Of Railway New Delhi And 5 Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Shachindra Pratap Singh, Mayankar Singh, Neeraj Kumar Rai Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.S.G.I.

¶9

Court No. - 2

¶10

HON'BLE MRS. SANGEETA CHANDRA, J. HON'BLE AMITABH KUMAR RAI, J.

¶11

Heard Shri Shachindra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri S.B. Pandey, learned D.S.G./ learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Varun Pandey, Advocate, for the Respondents.

¶12

This petition has been filed by the petitioners for the following prayers:-.

¶13

" i) to issue writ, order or direction of or in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned judgment and order, 26.09.2025, passed by the Learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow in Original Application No.167 of 2023 (Himanshu Kumar and others Vs. Union of India and others), as contained in Annexure No.1 to this writ petition;

¶14

ii) to issue writ, order or direction of or in the nature of certiorari quashing the Clause 6.0 and 12.1 of the Advertisement/Notification01 of 2019 to the extent it debars the Diploma Holders (Technician Apprentice)/Petitioners from selection, which had been incorporated after amendment vide corrigendum, dated 22.04.2022 after 03 years and 10 months from the date of advertisement i.e. 23.02.2019 (Annexure No.10) including any policy decision, as contained in

¶15

WRIA No. 13601 of 2025

¶16

¶17

Annexure No.2 to this writ petition;

¶18

iii) to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the of the recommendation/report committee pursuant to which policy had been formulated for according preference to the Course Completed Act Apprentices (CCAAs) in Level-1 recruitment after summoning the original from the Respondents, which was a basis for issuance of Railway Board's instructions under RBE No.71/2016, dated 21.06.2016 and it is being interpreted by the Respondents to segregate the Diploma Holders (Technician Apprentice) Course Completed Act Apprentices from recruitment process in pursuant to the Advertisement, dated 23.02.2019 despite clarification of the Union Minister of Railways vide Letter No.E(MPP)/2021/12/34 dated 28.04.2022 (Annexure No.7), where it has been provided the Course Completed Act Apprentices can apply for Level-1 category exams where a preference upto 20% is kept for them i.e. Diploma and Graduate, after summoning the original from the Respondents;

¶19

iv) to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the Letter No. RBE No.71/2016, dated 21.06.2016, which was issued in pursuance to the Recommendation/Committee Report which according to the Respondents could not be located, as contained in the Annexure No.3 to this writ petition;

¶20

v) to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondents to consider the case of the Petitioners for appointment under the quota of 20% earmarked for the Course Completed Act Apprentice in Advertisement, dated 23.02.2019 as per the judgment and order rendered by the Hon'ble High Court, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow in Writ Petition No.626 (S/B) of 2009 on 14.05.2010, as per the Circular dated 02.12.2010, 05.10.2012 issued by the Railway Board and the letter dated 28.04.2022, as contained in Annexure Nos.4, 5, 6 and 7 to this writ petition;

¶21

vi) to issue a writ in the nature mandamus commanding the Respondents to allow the Petitioners' appointment on their respective post forthwith as they had already qualified and declared successful in the final examination including in the medical examination on the

¶22

WRIA No. 13601 of 2025

¶23

¶24

Group-D post under 20% quota earmarked for the Course Completed Act Apprentice in Advertisement, dated 23.02.2019, as contained in Annexure No.10 to this writ petition;

¶25

vii) to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondents to allow the Petitioners to join their respective post forthwith and be paid salary regularly;

¶26

viii) to issue any other order or direction deemed fit and proper to protect the right of the petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶27

ix) to allow this writ petition with costs."

¶28

The counsel for the petitioners has stated that five Original Applications were filed before the learned Central Administrative Tribunal and nearly 50 applicants were before the Tribunal only in one O.A. No.324 of 2023: Poonam Yadav Vs. Union of India, there was no interim order. In all other Original Applications, an interim order was passed on 31.05.2023 reserving the posts on which the applicants stood selected and such interim order continued till disposal of the Original Applications on 26.09.2025 by the order impugned. It has also been stated that as per the Advertisement issued by the Railways Centralized Employment Notification RRC-012019, the petitioners possessed the requisite Educational Qualifications. They were Diplomas and Degrees holders in Engineering as also course completed Trade Apprentices and had worked in the Railway Establishment and completed their Apprenticeship Training and were given stipends also by the Railways. They had applied, they were selected but appointment letters were not issued to them and joining was not given to them only because the Railways, on the happening of subsequent events, changed the Educational Qualifications/ Eligibility Qualifications to benefit those candidates who fell under the 20% quota and had been given weightage as they were holding Apprentice Certificates from NCBT and SCBT. The petitioners' Certificates were issued by the Board of Apprentice Training under the Apprentice Training Act.

¶29

WRIA No. 13601 of 2025

¶30

¶31

Learned Deputy Solicitor General of India has argued, on the basis of Paragraphs 13, 24, 35 and 36 of the Judgment and Order impugned, that the Tribunal has considered the submissions in detail of all the applicants in the various Original Applications and has done the conclusion that the applicants had no case.

¶32

We are of the opinion that since the petitioners were enjoying an interim order since 31.05.2023 reserving certain posts of Class-IV Category out of 20,743 that were originally advertised, and such interim order continued till 26.09.2025 and the Original Application was rejected, the petitioners are entitled to interim protection before this Court till the matter is finally heard.

¶33

We stay the operation and enforcement of the Judgment and Order impugned in this writ petition till the next date of listing and also direct that the posts which were reserved for the petitioners in pursuance of the interim order dated 31.05.2023 shall continue to remain reserved.

¶34

List this matter on 27.11.2025 along with Writ-A No.13061 of 2025 [ Shailendra Singh and 4 Others Vs. Union of India and others ] .

¶35

(Amitabh Kumar Rai,J.) (Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.) November 24, 2025

¶36

N.PAL

¶37

Digitally signed by :- NARESH PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ram Prakash and 20 Others v. Union of India, Thru. Secy. Govt. of India Ministry of Railway New Delhi and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Prakash and 20 Others v. Union of India, Thru. Secy. Govt. of India Ministry of Railway New Delhi and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

U.O.I. Thru. Secy. Ministry of Defense New Delhi and 2 Others vs No. 7214457F Manoj Kumar

U.O.I. Thru. Secy. Ministry of Defence New Delhi and 3 Others vs 620178-G Ex Mwo Anand Prakash Tripathi (Retd.)

Krishanpal Singh vs State of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy. Deptt. of Infrastructure and Industrial Development, Lko.and 4 Others

Union of India, Thru. Secy. Ministry of Defence New Delhi and 3 Others vs No 781988 R Ex Sgt. Prabhat Kumar Sahu

Rahul Kumar Mishra and 10 Others vs U.O.I Thru. the Secy. to the Govt. of India Ministry of Railway New Delhi and 8 Others

Nisha Gautam and 6 Others vs Union of India Thru. Secy. to the Govt. of India,Ministry of Railway, New Delhi and 5 Others