Dismissed

Railway Recruitment Board v. Amit Fulzele & Anr.

Delhi HC18 Feb 2026W.P.(C)/997/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Railway Recruitment Board challenged a CAT order directing it to consider two candidates for alternate JE/SSE posts for which they had scored above the cut-off. The Board argued the practice was discontinued by a 2009 circular but admitted some departments still offer alternate posts. The High Court found no infirmity and dismissed the petition.

What the court decided

AI extract

Railway Recruitment Board Vs Amit Fulzele & Anr. — Service and Employment | Delhi HC (2026)

¶1

$~2

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 997/2026, CM APPL. 4857/2026 and CM APPL. 4858/2026

¶4

RAILWAY RECRUITMENT BOARD .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Balendu Shekhar, CGSC with Mr. Krishna Chaitanya, Mr. Rajkumar Maurya, Mr. Divyansh Singh Dev, Advs.

¶5

versus

¶6

AMIT FULZELE & ANR. .....Respondents

¶7

Through: None.

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN

¶10

O R D E R % 18.02.2026

¶11

Through the present Petition, the Petitioner seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari by assailing the correctness of the order dated 30.01.2025 [hereinafter referred to as „Impugned Order‟] passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal [hereinafter referred to as „the Tribunal‟], whereby the OA filed by the Respondents was allowed and the Petitioner was directed to consider the candidature of the Respondents for alternate posts, to which they had applied.

¶12

It is not disputed that the Respondent No.1 had obtained 58.32 marks, which were more than the cut-off marks for being selected in seven different categories of Junior Engineer (JE), whereas, Respondent No.2 had obtained 64.89 marks, which were more than the cut-off marks for being selected in two different categories of Senior Selection Engineer (SSE). The Tribunal has noticed that it has

¶13

This is a digitally signed order.

¶14

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 21/02/2026 at 12:15:37

¶15

been a standard practice for the Petitioner that the applicants who apply for numerous posts, if not found fit against a particular post with a higher medical standard, are then offered alternate employment in a lower grade/lower medical standard post.

¶16

Learned counsel representing the Petitioner does not dispute the aforesaid factual position, but submits that the said practice was discontinued vide circular dated 25.05.2009. Learned counsel fairly admits that despite the aforesaid circular, some departments in Railways are offering alternate posts.

¶17

Keeping in view the practice being adopted by the Petitioner, the Tribunal has taken a plausible view of the matter and granted relief to the Respondents for being considered in the alternate category in the respective posts in JE and SSE.

¶18

In the present case, the Respondents have admittedly secured higher marks than the cut-off marks required for various other alternate posts.

¶19

Accordingly, this Court finds no infirmity with the Impugned Order passed by the Tribunal while directing the Petitioner to consider the candidature of the Respondents for the alternate posts.

¶20

The present Petition, along with the pending applications, is dismissed.

¶21

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.

¶22

AMIT MAHAJAN, J.

¶23

FEBRUARY 18, 2026 jai/kb

¶24

This is a digitally signed order.

¶25

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 21/02/2026 at 12:15:37

Railway Recruitment Board v. Amit Fulzele & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Railway Recruitment Board v. Amit Fulzele & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajni Devi Vs Google India and Others

M/S Green One Drive Private Limited Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Lalit Narayan Mithila University Vs Delhi International Arbitration Centre & Ors.

Mgr Anna Dravid Munnetra Kazhagam Vs Election Commission of India

Yuvraj Singh Foundation Vs Union of India & Ors.

Balam Rawat Vs Delhi and District Cricket Association

Kai Nura Naik Bhauuddeshiya Shikshan Sanstha Sattarmal Vs Union of India

Delhi Lounge and Bar Private Limited Vs Government of N. C. T. of Delhi and Anr.

M/S Magus Consortium Orchid Avenue Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Mas Developers Pvt. Ltd.

Delhi Development Authority Vs Sunil Chawla

Pancham Singh and Ors. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Ajay Garg Vs Central Bureau of Investigation

Union of India & Ors. Vs Molshree Aggarwal & Anr.

Rajesh Meena Vs Union of India & Ors.