Union of India Vs Pavan Kumar

1. This writ petition at the instance of the Union of India assails judgment dated 14 November 2025 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal¹ in OA 3078/2025.

¶14

2. The respondents were, at the time of institution of the OA, working as Technician-II in the Northern Railway. Respondent 2 belonged to the Scheduled Castes² whereas Respondents 1 and 3 were general category employees.

¶15

1 “the Tribunal”, hereinafter

¶16

2 “SC” hereinafter Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 4898/2026 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Da te:2 9.04.2026 11:00:35

¶17

Page 1 of 12

¶18

3. On 4 October 2023, the Northern Railway issued a notice to fill up four posts of Junior Engineer/Electrical General against 25% Intermediate Apprentice quota. As they were eligible, the respondents applied. Written examination was undertaken on 28 December 2023. They were found suitable for further assessment by a Selection Board which met on 29 December 2023 against three unreserved and one SC vacancy.

¶19

4. They were empanelled for promotion as JE by the following order, issued on 5 February 2024 :

¶20

“NORTHERN RAILWAY Moradabad division Personal department

¶21

Office of the

¶22

Divil. Rily. Manager Moradabad

¶23

Letter No.DPO/127/23/JE (Elect.)/Gen/25%IQ

¶24

Dated: 05.02.2024

¶25

Sr. DEE/E/General MB/NR

¶26

Sub: Panel of JE/Gen 25% IQ Quota in GP-4200 (Level-6) Ref:- This office letter even no. dated 19.12.2023

¶27

As a result of written test held on 28.12.2023 for 04 posts (UR=03+SC=01+ST=00) of JE/Electric/Gen. 25% IQ quota in GP4200 (Level-6), the Following candidates have been placed on panel.

¶28

S.No.	Name Sh./Smt.	Father’s Name Sh.	Category	Designation	Station	Remarks
1.	Rahul Chamoli	Amta Prakash	UR	Tech- I/ACC/DDN	DDN	Against UR
2.	Gautam Kumar	Tilak Ram	UR	Tech- II/Power/M B	MB	Against UR
3.	Pradeep	Rajkishore	UR	Tech-	MB	Against

¶29

Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 4898/2026 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Da te:2 9.04.2026 11:00:35

¶30

Page 2 of 12

¶31

				II/TL/MB		UR
4.	Pawan	Ganga	SC	Tech-	MB	Against
	Kumar	Ram		II/Power/M B		SC

¶32

Only four (04) Candidates.

¶33

In view of latest GM/P letter No.2018-E(SCT)1/25/9 dated 22.06.2022 and PS 15607/2022 reservation policy, the panel is formed as per extant rules as per detail given below:-

¶34

a. Employees showing against item no.1 to 3 have been empanelled against UR point.

¶35

b. Employees showing against item no.4 has been empanelled against SC point.

¶36

Promotion order will be in effect after completion of 2 years service in feeder grade i.e., MCM/Gen case is pending against them and passing the pre requisite service training / course & medical examination if any applicable for this post.

¶37

Panel is provisional and also subject to outcome of the main SLP No.4831/2012 and Contempt petition (C) No.314/2016 in above SLP & other judgment in Courts cases, if any.

¶38

This has the approval of Competent Authority.

¶39

Assistant Personnel Officer N.Rly. MB division”

¶40

Thus, the communication dated 5 February 2024 stated that promotion orders would be issued after the empanelled officers had completed two years of service in the feeder grade and passed the pre-requisite service training course and medical examination.

¶41

5. On 14 February 2024, the respondents were nominated for training. The training calendar was issued on 21 June 2024. The respondents underwent training from 1 July 2024 to 13 December 2024. On 16 February 2025, they reported on being issued posting

¶42

orders. Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 4898/2026 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Da te:2 9.04.2026 11:00:35

¶43

Page 3 of 12

¶44

6. However, instead of being issued posting orders, the respondents were on 8 April 2025 asked to rejoin at their previous place of posting.

¶45

7. Chagrined at this, the respondents represented on 26 April 2025. They were, thereafter, informed that by the following communication dated 30 April 2025, issued by the Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, Moradabad to the Senior Divisional Engineer, Moradabad Division of the Northern Railway, it was informed that the Competent Authority had cancelled the panel notified on 5 February 2024 as well as the examination, undertaken by the respondents, which resulted in their empanelment:

¶46

Office of the, DRM’S Office, Moradabad

¶47

No. 723E/EO/Elect/G/25%/Selection/2024 Dated 30.04.2025 Sr. Divisional Engineer/Elect/G Moradabad Division Northern Railway

¶48

Sub:- Regarding cancellation of the selection of JE/Ele/IQ25%

¶49

Ref:- Conf. Section. DPO/127/23/JE(Elec)Gen25%IO dated 29.04.2025.

¶50

It is advised on the subject that a panel of JE/Elect/G was issued against vacant post 04 (UR-3+SC-1, ST-00) idee this office letter no DPO/127/23/JE(Elect)Gen25%IO dated 06.02.2025 and CBT examination conducted on 28.12.2023. The competent Authority approval received and same is treated as cancel.

¶51

Sr. Divisional Personnel Officer Moradabad Division

¶52

Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 4898/2026 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Da te:2 9.04.2026 11:00:35

¶53

Page 4 of 12

¶54

8. On 29 July 2025, a Notification was issued by the General Manager (Northern Railway), proposing to have a fresh selection for the four vacancies of JE/ Electrical against which the respondents had been empanelled.

¶55

9. Aggrieved at this, the respondents moved the Tribunal by way of OA 3078/2025, in which the impugned judgment has been rendered.

¶56

10. The respondents contended, before the Tribunal, that there was no justification for cancelling the panel. They pointed out that the ground of cancellation was apparently that few questions in the question paper were found to be repeated, which could not constitute a basis for cancelling the examination and subjecting the respondents to a fresh selection. Moreover, this could not have been done at a belated stage after the respondents had already been empanelled for promotion, and the order of empanelment also stated that the promotion orders would be issued once the respondent had completed their training. They had also completed the training as required and were awaiting promotion orders when they told that the entire selection process has been scrapped.

¶57

11. Besides, submitted the respondents, the selection process could not have been scrapped without notice to them and hearing them in the mater as it seriously affected their rights and their legitimate expectation to be issued posting orders, consequent to completion of training.

¶58

Signature Not Verified

¶59

Page 5 of 12

¶60

W.P.(C) 4898/2026 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR

¶61

Signing Da te:2 9.04.2026 11:00:35

¶62

12. As against this, the petitioner contended before the Tribunal that though it was true that the respondents had been empanelled and that the panel of 5 February 2024 had been approved and issued by the Assistant Divisional Railway Manager³ , there were certain subsequent queries received under the Right to Information Act, 2005⁴ and certain court proceedings which were initiated, which compelled the petitioners to re-examine the matter. Following these, it was stated that the setter, who had set the question paper, was conducted and he confirmed that certain questions had been repeated and that certain answers in the answer key were incorrect. A Committee was constituted to look into the matter. The Committee took a conscious decision that, to ensure fairness of opportunity and maintain the integrity of the process, the examination was required to be cancelled and a fresh selection held. This decision was approved by the Divisional Railway Manager⁵ , who was senior to the ADRM who had approved the panel of 5 February 2024.

¶63

13. Dealing with the rival contentions, the Tribunal took note of the notification dated 5 March 2025 issued by the Northern Railway and the Railway Board Circular dated 11 November 1999, which may be reproduced thus:

¶64

Northern Railway Notification dated 5 March 2025

¶65

"उ�ररेलवे NORTHERN RAILWAY GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS

¶66

3 “ADRM”, hereinafter

¶67

4 “RTI Act” hereinafter

¶68

5 “DRM”, hereinafter Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 4898/2026 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Da te:2 9.04.2026 11:00:35

¶69

Page 6 of 12

¶70

(RAILWAY BOARD)

¶71

No. E(NG)I/2025/PM1/3

¶72

New Delhi, dated 05.03.2025

¶73

The General Manager, All Zonal Railways/PUs. (As per standard mailing list)

¶74

Sub: Irregularities in selections and reforms thereon .

¶75

Due to several irregularities noticed in the departmental selections in the recent past, it has been decided to revisit the departmental selection framework and all the pending selections/LDCES/GDCES (within Group 'C') which have not been finalized and approved by 04.03.2025 may be treated as cancelled. No further selections may be initiated until further orders. Further instructions to regulate the selections will be issued in due course. Hindi version will follow.

¶76

DA: Nil. (Rajeev Ranjan)

¶77

Sd/-

¶78

Joint Director (Estt (N) Railway Board

¶79

No. E(NG)1/2025/PM1/3New Delhi, dated 05.03.2025”

¶80

Railway Board Circular dated 11 November 2019

¶81

“GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS (RAILWAY BOARD)

¶82

No.E(NG)I/2019/PM 4/13 New Delhi, dated Nov.11, 2019

¶83

The General Managers All Zonal Railways & Production Units etc. (as per standard mailing list)

¶84

Sub: Cancellation of selection after declaration of result-Due Notice to be given to candidates declared selected.

¶85

Instances have been brought to the notice of Railway Board, where selection proceedings have been cancelled by the

¶86

Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 4898/2026 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Da te:2 9.04.2026 11:00:35

¶87

Page 7 of 12

¶88

competent authority on the Railways after declaration of the results of selection due to irregularities/malpractices being detected in the selection subsequently. In some of these cases, it has been noticed that the Courts have taken exception to such practices and passed adverse judgment due to notice not being served to the selected candidates prior to issue of the cancellation orders.

¶89

As the existing rules/instructions on the subject are silent on this issue, it has been decided by the Board that whenever selection proceedings are required to be cancelled after of result due to procedural irregularities/malpractices, due notice should be given to the candidates declared selected.

¶90

The Indian Railway Establishment Manual, 1989-Vol.1 is accordingly amended as per ACS No.269 enclosed herewith.

¶91

No.E(NG)I/2019/PM 4/13 New Delhi, dated Nov. 11^th, 2019”

¶92

14. The Tribunal reasoned thus:

¶93

(i) The Northern Railway’s Notification dated 5 November 2025 envisaged cancellation only of selections which had not been finalised and approved by 4 March 2025. Inasmuch as the respondents had already been empanelled for promotion as JE on 5 February 2024, their selection could not have been cancelled.

¶94

(ii) As per the Railway Board Circular dated 11 November 2019, whenever a selection was proposed to be cancelled after declaration of the result due to procedural irregularities or even malpractices, due notice had to be given to the selected candidates. This was also not done.

¶95

Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 4898/2026 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Da te:2 9.04.2026 11:00:35

¶96

Page 8 of 12

¶97

(iii) No material had been placed on record to indicate that the approval of the DRM had been obtained prior to cancellation of the selection as was required by para 219(a) of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual⁶ .

¶98

(iv) It was completely unfair to cancel the selection post the training undertaken by the respondents when they had a legitimate expectation of being issued posting orders.

¶99

15. For all these reasons, the Tribunal, vide the impugned judgment, set aside the order dated 30 April 2025 whereby the respondents had been informed of the cancellation of the selection undertaken by them as well as the order dated 29 July 2025 inviting fresh recruitments to the extent it included the vacancies against which the respondents had been empanelled. The petitioner was, therefore, directed to restore the panel dated 5 February 2024 and post the respondents as JE with all consequential benefits including seniority and notional fixation of pay.

¶100

16. Aggrieved thereby, the Northern Railway has approached this Court by means of the present writ petition.

¶101

17. We have heard Ms. Arunima Dwivedi, learned CGSC for the petitioner and Mr. Mukesh Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the respondents, at length.

¶102

18. Learned counsel for the parties have broadly reiterated the contentions advanced before the Tribunal. Ms. Dwivedi, in particular,

¶103

Signature Not Verified6 “IREM”, hereinafter W.P.(C) 4898/2026 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Da te:2 9.04.2026 11:00:35

¶104

Page 9 of 12

¶105

submits that once a conscious decision had been taken by the Committee, in the interest of ensuring fairness, to cancel the selection earlier conducted, the Tribunal was in error in interfering therewith.

¶106

19. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment of the Tribunal in the peculiar facts of the present case.

¶107

20. The selection was held only for four posts. Only four candidates were, therefore, empanelled, of whom three are before us.

¶108

21. Cancellation of a selection wholesale is not a routine exercise to be undertaken at a drop of the hat. Ordinarily, cancellation of a selection takes place only where there is large scale malpractice or resort to unfair means. In the present case, nothing of the kind happened.

¶109

22. The respondents were also noncommittal with respect to the nature of the RTI queries and the Court cases which empanelled them to refer the matter once again to the person who had set the question papers. It is not the petitioner’s case that there were any orders passed by any Court or Tribunal which directed that the selections already held, be cancelled and fresh selection undertaken. The mere fact that some persons may have made RTI queries or even instituted cases in Courts, could not constitute a legitimate basis to cancel the entire selection thereby subjecting the respondents, who had practically one foot in the door, to an entirely new selection process. This is especially so as no mala fides or unfairness has been attributed to the

¶110

Page 10 of 12

¶111

Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 4898/2026 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Da te:2 9.04.2026 11:00:35

¶112

respondents at any point of time.

¶113

23. Besides the exercise of holding a fresh selection was, as the Tribunal has correctly noted, violative both of Northern Railway Notification dated 5 March 2025 as well as Railway Board Circular dated 11 November 2019. The Northern Railway Notification dated 5 March 2025 specifically envisaged cancellation only of selections which had not been finalized and approved by 4 March 2025. In the present case, the respondents’ empanelment had been finalized and approved by the ADRM on 5 February 2024, more than a year prior to 4 March 2025. The said selection could not, therefore, have been cancelled as per Northern Railway Notification dated 5 March 2025.

¶114

24. The Tribunal is also correct in its finding that the cancellation of the respondent’s selection without notice to them violated the Railway Board Circular dated 11 November 2019, inasmuch as the said Circular required notice to be issued to the selected candidates before the selection was cancelled.

¶115

25. We also find substance in the Tribunal’s observation that the selection of the respondents could not have been cancelled at a belated stage. They had participated in the examination, cleared all rounds and had been found fit for promotion, whereafter they were empanelled on 5 February 2024. The notice dated 5 February 2024 clearly stated that promotion orders were being deferred because the respondents had to complete two years’ service in the feeder grade and to pass the preservice training course. Following this, according to the said notice, only posting orders were required to be issued. Thereafter, the Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 4898/2026 Page 11 of 12 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Da te:2 9.04.2026 11:00:35

¶116

respondents were nominated for training and underwent training as per the Training Guidelines issued by the petitioner. We are in agreement with the Tribunal that, after all this, when they reported for being issued posting orders, the petitioners could not have been faced with a decision to cancel the entire selection and conduct it de novo .

¶117

26. We find the cancellation of the selection in such a fashion at the point when the selected candidates were practically about to be appointed disquieting to say the least. The manner in which it was done, in clear violation of the instructions and directives of the Northern Railway and the Railway Board, are also unhappy. However, inasmuch as no mala fides have been pleaded or argued, we say no more.

¶118

27. In the peculiar facts of the present case, therefore, we do not find any cause to interfere with the impugned judgment of the Tribunal, which is affirmed in its entirety. Let compliance with the judgment be ensured within eight weeks from today.

¶119

28. The writ petition is dismissed with no orders as to costs.

¶120

C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

¶121

OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J.

¶122

APRIL 13, 2026/ yg

¶123

Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 4898/2026 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Da te:2 9.04.2026 11:00:35

¶124

Page 12 of 12

Union of India v. Pavan Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India v. Pavan Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr. Vaisakh Sanal Vs Maulana Azad Medical College

Anita Kumari Shimar Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Vaibbhav Rawal Vs Union of India & Anr.

Shashi Bhushan Badoni & Anr. Vs Registrar of Cooperative Societies & Ors.

Samrita Singh Vs Bank of India & Ors.

Sanjay Kuamr Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Babu Lal Koli Vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

Devendra Singh Vs the Bses & Ors.

All India Institute of Medical Sciences & Anr. Vs Vinod Kumar Vishwakarma

Union of India & Ors. Vs Sh Purshotam Dass Sharma & Ors.

Commissioner of Delhi Police and Ors. Vs Vivek Yadav

Union of India and Ors. Vs Association of Radio and Television Engineering Employees and Anr.

New Delhi Municipal Council & Anr. Vs Ritika Arora & Ors.

Titagarh Rail Systems Limited Vs Railway Board, Ministry of Railways, Government of India