1 (RNT,J & PKC,J WP.NO.15119 OF 2023) APHC010256612023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE 10th DAY OF AUGUST 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE PURUSHOTTAM KUMAR CHINTALAPUDI WRIT PETITION NO: 15119 OF 2023 Between: 1. THE UNION OF INDIA, rep. by its General Manager South Central Railway, Rail Nilayam Secunderabad. 2. The Divisional Railway Manager, South Central Railway Vijayawada Division Vijayawada. 3. The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, South Central Railway Vijayawada Division Vijayawada ...Petitioners AND 1. N SATYANARAYANA RAJU, S/o. Subba Raju Aged about 42 years, Occ Commercial Porter (Group-C) Booking Office, Tadeipalligudem South Central Railway Vijayawada Division R/o. 2-22, Rajula Street, Ganapavaram West Godavari District-534 197. 2. Alisha Md A, S/o.Md.Jilani Aged about 42 years Occ Waiting Room Attendant Booking Office, Anakapalli South Central Railway, Vijayawada Division R/o. H.No.7-12-105, Yellamanchali Visakha District 531055 2 (RNT,J & PKC,J WP.NO.15119 OF 2023) 3. Kanchi Muni Sekhara, S/o.K.N.Achari Aged about 33 years, Occ Goods Shed Hamali (GSH) Goods Shed Office NGFS Kakinada, South Central Railway Vijayawada Division R/o. H.No.70-18-11-1/1, Bondagunta, Near VS Laxmi College Ramanaiahpeta, Kakinada-533005 4. R Nagar Prasad, S/o.Appalaswamy Aged about 40 years Occ Waiting Room Attender (WRA) SMR Office, Vijayawada South Central Railway, Vijayawada Division R/o. H.No.4-27/1, Krishnalanka Kotha Mission Road Vijayawada 520 013. 5. I Naveen Babu, S/o. I. Durga Rao Aged about 32 years, Occ Parcel Office Hamali (POH) Parcel Office, Vijayawada South Central Railway, Vijayawada Division R/o.H.No. 1-74, Nulakapeta, Tazdepalli Mandal Guntur District 522 501 6. Prem Sagar Gupta, , S/o. Kishorisha Aged about 34 years Occ Goods Shed Hamali Goods Shed office, South Central Railway Gudivada, R/o. H.No.Rly Qrt No.28E Gudivada, Krishna District. 7. K Suresh, S/o.Simhadrik Aged about 38 years Occ Rest House Watchman (RHWM) CTI Office, Visakhapatnam R/o. Pimpidia Village Chowkapeta Post Mandusa Mandal Srikakulam District. 8. Ch Narasinga Rao, S/o.Ganapathi Rao Aged about 42 years Occ RHWM, CTI Office Visakhapatnam, R/o. H.No.38-35-48/1 Ranaprathap Nagar, Marripalem Visakhapatnam. 9. M Chittibabu, S/o. Atchenna Aged about 38 years Occ RHWM, CTI Office Visakhapatnam, R/o. Attada Village Jami Mandal, Vizianagaram Dist-535 214 10. G Narasimha Rao, S/o. G. Subba Rao Aged about 53 years Occ Waitingi Room Attender Vijayawada Station, S. C. Railwayu R/o. H. No.74-14-65 F2, Ayyappa Nagar Vijayawada 520 007. 3 (RNT,J & PKC,J WP.NO.15119 OF 2023) 11. Sk Karimulla, S/o SK Mahaboob Basha, Aged about 36 years, Occ RRA/CTI/STN/BZA, R/o D. No. 118-J, Railway Colony, Satyanarayanapuram, Vijayawada 12. CH Gopi Raju, S/o Ch. Venkateshwara Rao, Aged about 38 years, Occ POH/CTI/STN/BZA, R/o D. No. 791/1, LOCO Colony, Vijayawada. 13. G Usha Kalyani, D/o A. Rama Lingam, Aged about 33 years, Occ ROH/CAS/STN/BZA, R/o D. No. 76-4-8/4, Suphala Building Road, Bhavanipuram Krishna District 14. N R Swathi, D/o N. Raja Gopal, Aged about 33 years, Occ WRA/CTI/STN/BZA, R/o D. No. 43-106-1-49/9A, 8th Line Thotavari Street, Singh Nagar, Vijayawada. 15. Y Sharmila, D/o Y. Murali, Aged about 36 years, Occ POH/CTI/STN/BZA, R/o D. No. 14-23-25, Near Lakshmi Narayana Swamy Temple, RCM Church Road, Heart pet,Vijayawada 16. T NR Kumari, D/o T Venkata Ramana, Aged about 35 years, Occ POH/CTI/STN/BZA, R/o D. No. 206-135, 4th Line, Ramalingeswarapeta, Ayodya Nagar, Vijayawada 17. T Revathi, W/o TV Samba Siva Rao, Aged about 40 years, Occ POH/Sr.Demo/O/BZA, R/o Flat No. 112, 1st Block, Ayodya Nagar, Indira Enclave Apartment, Vijayawada. 18. K Srinivasa Rao, S/o K. Appala Naidu, Aged about 38 years, Occ Commercial Courier/Sr. Dem/o/BZA, R/o Railway Quarters, 151/D, Satyanarayanapuram, Vijayawada. 19. K Ramesh Babu, K. Yelamanda, Aged about 42 years, Occ WRA/CTI/STN/BZA, R/o 617/D, Inchipeta, Panja Center, Vijayawada 4 (RNT,J & PKC,J WP.NO.15119 OF 2023) 20. SK Mahabee, D/o SK Hussain, Aged about 33 years, Occ RRA/CTI/STN/BEA, R/o D-42-84-8, Lung Center, MK Mega School, Ajith Singh Nagar, Vijayawada 21. L Lakshmana Kumar, S/o L. V. Prasad, Aged about 36 years, Occ Commercial Courier/Sr. DCM/o/BZA, R/o D. No. 19-165, 2nd Floor, Putta Road, Ramalingeswar Nagar, Vijayawada 22. K Arjun Kumar, S/o K. Nageshwara Rao, Aged about 38 years, OCC ROH/CRS/STN/BEA, R/o D. No. 3-4, Musthabad Post, Gannavaram Mandal, Krishna district 23. D V V Satyanarayana, S/o D. Bhaskar Rao, Aged about 53 years, Occ ROH/CCT, R/o Railway Quarter No. 36, Sri Rama Nagar, Kakinada Town, East Godavari District 24. O Hymavathi, W/o Subba Rao, Aged about 31 years, Occ WRA/CTI/STN/BZA, R/o D. No. 11-1-59, Kovvur, West Godavari District 25. P Irfan Khan, S/o P. Khasim Khan, Aged about 38 years, Occ Commercial Courier/Sr. DCM/o/BZA, R/o D. No. TF-6, Block-3, TSR Complex, Opp V. P. Siddhartha School, Vijayawada. 26. Ch Madhu Babu, S/o China Jalaiah, Aged about 31 years, Occ GSH/Commercial/stores/BZA, R/o 18-11-26/28, Nedareswara Rao Pet, Khuddusnagar, Vijayawada. Respondents No. 11 to 26 impleaded as per Court Order dt 22.12.2023 Vide I.A.No.4 of 2023 in W.P. 15119 of 2023 ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased topleased to issue Writ of Certiorari thereby calling for the records pertaining to O.A. No.651/2020, which was disposed by way of final order dated 25-07-2022 on the file of Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal, 5 (RNT,J & PKC,J WP.NO.15119 OF 2023) Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad and Set aside the same, as the impugned order is illegal, arbitrary and against to the Railway Rules particularly Para No.303 of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual and Set aside the same and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to Suspend the oepration of the order O.A. No.651/2020, which was disposed by way of final order dated 25-07-2022 on the file of Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad, pending disposal of the main writ petition and to pass such IA NO: 2 OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased Pleased to extend the time for implementation of the Interim Order passed in IA 1 of 2023 by 4 weeks, from 09-08-2023 and pass IA NO: 3 OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased Pleased to grant leave to the petitioner to file present implead petition before this Hon'ble High Court as they are not parties in the OA No. 651 of 2020 before Central Administrative Tribunal and pass IA NO: 4 OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased Pleased to pass orders impleading the proposed petitioner as party Respondent No. 11 to 26 in WP No. 15119 of 2023 to represent the cause in the interest of justice and pass 6 (RNT,J & PKC,J WP.NO.15119 OF 2023) IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to grant leave and permit the petitioners to file counter affidavit and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2026 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to grant leave to respondents in the Writ Petition No. 15119 of 2023 to file counter affidavit in the above writ petition and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2026 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased May be pleased to grant leave to the petitioners herein to file their reply affidavit and pass Counsel for the Petitioners: DIVYA DATLA(CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL) Counsel for the Respondents: THOTA SUNEETHA Counsel for the Respondents:RAVI KIRAN PONNURU The Court made the following order: 7 (RNT,J & PKC,J WP.NO.15119 OF 2023) ORDER :- (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari) Heard Smt.Divya Datla, learned Central Government Counsel appearing for the petitioners, Smt.Thota Suneetha, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1, 4, 5 & 7 and Sri P.Ravi Kiran, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.11 to 26. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners, aggrieved by the judgment, dated 25.07.2022 passed in O.A.No.651 of 2020, by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, (in short „Tribunal‟). 3. The respondent Nos. 1 to 10 are the applicants in the O.A., 4. For the recruitment to the promotion post of Group-C „Ticket Examiners‟ in Level 3 CPC from erstwhile Group D staff of the Commercial Department against the 33 1/3% quota, with a minimum service of two years, the petitioners issued a Notification dated 27.10.2017 for filling up 102 vacancies. Under the Notification, the first examination was conducted on 9.4.2018. However, the examination was cancelled on 7.5.2018. A re-examination was subsequently held, in which the applicants in the O.A. did not qualify. 5. O.A.No.020/474/2018 was filed by the candidates who had qualified in the first examination but could not qualify in the second 8 (RNT,J & PKC,J WP.NO.15119 OF 2023) examination. The O.A. was disposed of vide common order dated 15.11.2018 with the following directions : “23. Based on the aforesaid reasons and observations made by the Honorable Supreme Court, the balance of convenience does not fling either towards the respondents / private respondents or the applicants. The tilt has to be towards justice. Hence, this Tribunal is left with only option of directing the respondents to consider : i). To issue a fresh notification and conduct the exam afresh to select candidates for the post of ticket examiner against 33 1/3% quota by giving reasonable time to the candidates to prepare and appear. ii). To allow all those candidates who appeared in the first exam and the re-exam, to appear in the proposed exam to be conducted, without disqualifying them on grounds of age or any other parameter. iii) To permit other candidates who are eligible to appear, in order to usher in a healthy competition and select the best among the lot, by conducting the exam under the selection in a vigilant, fair, uniform, and transparent manner. iv). Taking into account that Group-D / Group-C staff are expected to be computer literate, the respondents may think of conducting exams in future on an IT platform with objective-type questions with highly secure softwares which are proven and tested. This will bring in transparency, automated evaluation, evaluation accuracy, economy in conduct of exams, instant results, and curbing diversion of regular staff to malpractices by random jumbling of questions candidate-wise etc., Associated action of a pen mounted camera, placed in the exam hall or on the body of the invigilator to send real-time video images of the conduct of the exam (which can 9 (RNT,J & PKC,J WP.NO.15119 OF 2023) be monitored from a command center with provision to store such images for future reference). These two are relatively cheap but highly efficient. Such surveillance would send chilling fear down anyone's spine and would be an effective deterrent against exam malpractices. The respondents' organization, with the strong IT backing, can easily adopt this suggestion. The suggestion is made since the respondents' organization is the pride of the nation, and any dent to its image is not in public interest. We also make it lucid that this is only suggestive and not a directive. It is open to the respondents to do what best they can to make the exams free of all variants of malpractices. The earlier the better, lest they have to continue fighting legal battles on examinations, which can be avoided by harnessing appropriate and well-grounded IT solutions. Suggestion may be brought to the notice of the first respondent for taking necessary action as is deemed fit in the matter, in the interest of the respondents' organization. v). The fact that the respondents do also put in lot of hard work and effort to organize an exam, as much as the candidates in preparing for the exam, we leave it open to the respondents to act sternly against all those involved in derailing the selection/exam process in question by getting a to those who have been honest in writing the exam or submitting themselves to a selection. We are making this observation considering the trend of exam-related litigation involving the respondents. vi). The time allowed to implement the order is four months from the date of receipt of this order. 24. OAs are disposed of with the above directions. Pending MAs stand disposed accordingly. No order as to costs.” 10 (RNT,J & PKC,J WP.NO.15119 OF 2023) 6. It is clear that the direction issued by the Tribunal in O.A.No.020/474/2018 was to issue a fresh notification and conduct a fresh examination. 7. The order of the Tribunal dated 15.11.2018 passed in O.A.No.020/474/2018 was challenged before this Court in W.P.Nos.45675 of 2018 and 102 of 2019, which were dismissed by this Court, by order dated 14.08.2020. 8. Pursuant to the order of the Tribunal dated 15.11.2018, but pending W.P.No.45675 of 2018, the first notification was cancelled and a fresh notification was issued on 18.12.2018, for 102 vacancies for the same test for promotion. In the meantime, by order dated 03.01.2019, this Court, in the aforesaid writ petitions, permitted the examination process pursuant to the second notification to proceed, but directing that the selection process shall not be finalized until further orders. 9. The results were declared on 08.04.2019. Subsequently, due to discrepancies in the evaluation of the answer scripts, the selection was cancelled on 23.09.2020. 10. Challenging the order of cancellation dated 23.09.2020, the applicants filed O.A.No.651 of 2020 before the Central Administrative Tribunal. 11 (RNT,J & PKC,J WP.NO.15119 OF 2023) 11. The O.A.No.651 of 2020 was allowed by the CAT, vide order dated 25.07.2022 in the following terms: “II) After going through the pleadings of the case, submissions of the parties, and also the legal position, the respondents are directed to conduct a fresh examination within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The applicants herein shall be allowed to appear in the said examination. If the applicants qualify in the examination to be conducted by the respondent, they should be given seniority with effect from 19.4.2018, the date on which the results of the first written examination were declared. Ordered accordingly. As applicants have been suffering since a long time, it is expected from the respondents that the examination will be conducted at the earliest by taking necessary steps in order to avoid any scope of irregularities. III) With the above directions, the O.A. is partly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.” 12. Aggrieved by the order dated 25.07.2022, the present writ petition has been filed. 13. Smt. Divya Datla, learned Central Government Counsel appearing for the petitioners, submits that the grievance is confined to the direction issued to the respondents in O.A.No.651 of 2020, that the seniority should be given with effect from 19.04.2018, the date on which the results of the first written examination were declared. 14. Learned Central Government Counsel for the petitioners submits that seniority ought not to be reckoned from 19.04.2018, as directed by the 12 (RNT,J & PKC,J WP.NO.15119 OF 2023) Tribunal. She submits that the first notification was cancelled. The examination was conducted pursuant to the second notification, which was issued in compliance with the direction of the Tribunal to issue a fresh notification. Aforesaid directions of the Tribunal were thereafter upheld by dismissal of the writ petitions. She submits that, for determining the seniority of railway employees, Rule 303 of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual (in short „IREM‟) is the relevant and a binding provision. She referred to Rule 303 of the IREM, which reads as under: “Rule 303: The seniority of the candidates recruited through the Railway Recruitment Board or by any recruiting authority should be determined as under: “The copy of Rule 303 is filed herewith for the kind consideration of this Hon'ble Court, wherein as per the said rule, to consider seniority of a candidate, subsequent to the final eligibility list, the candidates who are eligible, will be sent to the initial training to the training schools and their seniority in the relevant grade will be considered in accordance with the order of merit obtained by the candidates in the examination to be held at the end of training period before being posted against the working post.” 15. Learned Central Government Counsel further submits that the direction to reckon seniority from 19.04.2018 is not sustainable. The seniority of the persons selected and promoted pursuant to the second 13 (RNT,J & PKC,J WP.NO.15119 OF 2023) notification/examination is required to be determined in accordance with the applicable rules. 16. Smt. Thota Suneetha, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1, 4, 5 and 7, submits that, as per the provisions contained in Railway Master Circular No.31, New Delhi, dated 19.12.2019, particularly Point No.23 under the caption “Erroneous Promotion”, the directions issued by the Tribunal cannot be said to be contrary to law as there was an error in the administrative decision in conducting the examination. 17. Sri P. Ravi Kiran, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.11 to 26, also makes submissions on the same lines as those advanced by the learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1, 4, 5 and 7. 18. It may be mentioned at this stage that the respondent Nos.11 to 26 had earlier filed W.P.No.24428 of 2023, raising a grievance that, although the re-examination was conducted, only certain candidates were permitted to appear for the same. The writ petition was disposed of, by order dated 24.11.2023, directing the concerned Departments to address the grievance of the petitioners therein. Pursuant to the aforesaid direction, respondent Nos.11 to 26 were also permitted to appear for the examination and were subsequently selected. 19. We have considered the aforesaid submissions advanced by the learned counsels for the parties, and perused the material on record. 14 (RNT,J & PKC,J WP.NO.15119 OF 2023) 20. The relevant facts for adjudication of the present writ petition are not in dispute. The first notification was cancelled pursuant to the direction issued by the Tribunal in O.A.No.474 of 2018 by order dated 15.11.2018, whereby the respondents therein were directed to issue a fresh notification and conduct a fresh examination. That order was challenged before this Court in W.P.Nos.45675 of 2018 and 102 of 2019, which were dismissed by order dated 14.08.2020. Consequently, the directions issued by the Tribunal attained finality. In compliance with the aforesaid directions, a fresh notification was issued and a fresh examination was conducted, in which the applicants in O.A.No.474 of 2018 were permitted to appear. Aggrieved by the manner in which the fresh examination was conducted, respondent Nos.11 to 26 herein had approached this Court by filing W.P.No.24428 of 2023. The said writ petition was disposed of by order dated 24.11.2023, directing the concerned Departments to address their grievance. Pursuant thereto, respondent Nos.11 to 26 were also permitted to appear in the examination and were subsequently selected. 21. In the aforesaid circumstances, the process pursuant to the first notification stood cancelled and came to an end. Therefore, the selection made pursuant to the first notification cannot be relied upon to confer any right upon the selected candidates to claim seniority from the date of such selection. 15 (RNT,J & PKC,J WP.NO.15119 OF 2023) 22. It is not in dispute that the candidates selected pursuant to the fresh notification were promoted. However, the question as to the date from which their seniority is to be reckoned has to be determined in accordance with the applicable rules and the circumstances arising from the subsequent notification and conduct of the fresh examination. 23. The submission advanced by Smt. Thota Suneetha, learned counsel for the respondents with regard to the applicability of Railway Master Circular No.31, dated 19.12.2019, particularly Point No.23 under the caption “Erroneous Promotion”, cannot be accepted in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Paragraph 12 of the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1, 4 and 7, indicates that the provision relates to the cases where, due to administrative errors, staff members are „overlooked‟ for promotion to higher grades. In our view, the present case is not one of an employee being „overlooked‟ for promotion. 24. The examination conducted pursuant to the first notification was cancelled on account of certain errors. The first notification itself was cancelled, and a fresh notification was issued pursuant to the directions of the Tribunal, which directions were subsequently upheld by this Court. When a fresh notification is issued and a fresh examination is conducted pursuant thereto, the promotion of the successful candidates cannot be said to be on the basis of their having participated in the earlier examination and being selected and so directed to take effect from the date of the earlier selection, 16 (RNT,J & PKC,J WP.NO.15119 OF 2023) i.e., 19.04.2018. The entire selection was cancelled and even mere selection, it is settled in law does not confer any right and particularly when the entire selection under the first notification was cancelled. 25. We, therefore, find merit in the submission advanced by the learned Central Government Counsel for the petitioners to that extent. 26. The writ petition is allowed in part. The order dated 25.07.2022 passed in O.A.No.651 of 2020 by the Central Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad is set aside to the extent it provides for the grant of seniority from 19.04.2018. 27. The petitioners shall determine the seniority in accordance with law as per the rules governing the determination of seniority, within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall also stand closed. ____________________ RAVI NATH TILHARI, J _____________________________________ PURUSHOTTAM KUMAR CHINTALAPUDI, J Date : 10.08.2026. RPD. 17 (RNT,J & PKC,J WP.NO.15119 OF 2023) 82 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE PURUSHOTTAM KUMAR CHINTALAPUDI (ALLOWED) WRIT PETITION NO: 15119 of 2023 Date: 10.08.2026 RPD.