Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010106912024 2025:GAU-AS:10298-DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/3602/2024 1.UNION OF INDIA AND 3 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, N.F. RAILWAY, HEAD QUARTERS MALIGAON, GUWAHATI-781011. 2: THE GENERAL MANAGER (P) N.F. RAILWAY HEAD QUARTERS MALIGAON GUWAHATI-781011. 3: THE CHIEF WORKSHOP MANAGER N.F. RAILWAY DIBRUGARH WORKSHOP DIBRUGARH-786001. 4: THE SPO DIBRUGARH WORKSHOP IRPS N.F. RAILWAY DIBRUGARH WORKSHOP DIBRUGARH-786001 VERSUS NABAJIT BARUA S/O- JOI KANTA BARUA, TECHNICIAN GRADE-II, DIBRUGARH MECHANICAL WORKSHOP, VILL.- VIVEKANANDA PALLY, NEAR NALIAPOOL BAZAR, HOUSE NO. 236 A, P.O. AND DIST. DIBRUGARH, ASSAM, PIN- 786001. For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. B. Chakravarty, Central Government Counsel. For the Respondent(s) : Dr. G.J. Sharma, Advocate. Page No.# 2/6 – B E F O R E – HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY 06.08.2025 (Ashutosh Kumar, CJ) We have heard Mr. B. Chakravarty, learned Central Government Counsel for the petitioners/Union of India & Ors. and Dr. G.J. Sharma, learned Advocate for the sole respondent. 2. In this writ petition, order dated 10.01.2024 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench [for short, “Tribunal”] in O.A. No.040/00040/2018 is under challenge, whereby a direction has been issued to appoint the respondent to the post of JE/WS or JE/M&P from the panel of selected candidates, as mentioned in the Memorandum dated 11.09.2017, in modification of the earlier modified result dated 06.01.2018 with all consequential benefits. This exercise was to be completed within a period of 8(eight) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order referred to above. 3. It appears that on 31.05.2017, a Notification for recruitment of 4(four) Junior Engineers in the discipline of Workshop Service (WS) and 1(one) Junior Engineer for Mechanical and Power (M&P) was issued. 4. In that Notification, the distribution of the posts were as follows; For the post of JE/WS, 03(three) posts were allocated for the Unreserved (UR) category, 1(one) for the Scheduled Caste (SC) category and none for the Scheduled Tribe (ST) category. Page No.# 3/6 For JE/M&P post, 1(one) post was allocated for the Unreserved category with no post for SC and ST categories. 5. Pursuant to the Notification, a written examination had been conducted and, on the basis of the performance of the candidates including that of the respondent, a select/panel list was prepared and published on 11.09.2017. 6. Amongst the 4(four) successful candidates in the Unreserved category, the name of the respondent figured. 7. However, 8(eight) days later, on 19.09.2017, the select list was cancelled for the reason that the posts reserved for ST category was erroneously included in the Unreserved category. For this error, the panel list was required to be re-framed. 8. Subsequently, a fresh select list was published on 06.01.2018, in which the name of the respondent did not figure. 9. The name of the respondent figured at Serial No.5 of select list dated 11.09.2017 and since only 4(four) posts were earmarked for the Unreserved category, the name of the respondent had to be excluded. 10. This change in the select list was challenged by the respondent through an O.A. before the Tribunal. 11. The ground urged on behalf of the respondent was that once a select list was prepared, it could not have been changed or altered to the disadvantage of the respondent. Page No.# 4/6 12. Acceding to the arguments raised, the Tribunal concluded that no change could have been made with regard to vacancy or, otherwise, if the examination was held as per the terms and conditions of the Notification, without cancelling the Notification in the first instance. 13. The Tribunal also held that when the Notification in question was in existence, in which there was a specific mention of 4(four) Unreserved vacancies and 1(one) vacancy for SC category in the post of JE/WS and JE/M&P and no ST vacancy against 5(five) vacancies of JE/WS and JE/M&P, then, even if there was a mistake in the calculation or earmarking of vacancies, the only way out for the authority was to cancel the Notification. 14. Under no circumstances, the Tribunal concluded that, in the midst of the recruitment process, the vacancy position could have been changed. 15. The learned counsel for the petitioners/Union of India submits that the decision by the Tribunal was rendered in the absence of the petitioners’ counsel and that the reasoning given by the Tribunal is not correct. It was not a mid-way change. 16. According to the Master Circular No.31 in connection with Promotion of Non-Gazetted (Group ‘C’) Staff to Selection Posts, a panel once approved should not be normally cancelled. However, if after the formation and announcement of the panel, procedural irregularities or other defects are found and it is considered necessary to cancel or amend such a panel, that could be done but only after obtaining the approval of the authority next higher than the one who approved the panel. In that case, representation, if any, against a panel would be submitted to the competent authority within a period of 2(two) Page No.# 5/6 months from the date of announcement of the panel. The authority that approved the panel, or higher authority, could use his discretion and take such action as is considered necessary, subject to his satisfaction that an irregularity had occurred. 17. In fact, what had happened was that one candidate of the ST category had migrated to the Unreserved category on the basis of his performance. 18. Precisely for this reason, the vacancy position for Unreserved category was reduced to No.4 only. 19. Since the respondent was at Serial No.5, his name had to be excluded. This aspect of the matter has not been gone into by the Tribunal. 20. The change in the vacancy position, on the basis of the amendment made in the selection list, was permissible under the Instructions/Circular relevant for the purpose. 21. Defending the decision of the Tribunal, Mr. Sharma, learned Advocate for the respondent has drawn the attention of this Court to a decision of the Supreme Court in Govt. of NCT Delhi & Ors. Vs. Pradeep Kumar & Ors., [Civil Appeal No.8259 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.11254 of 2019)], in which it was held that any person having availed of concessions under the Reserved category could not migrate to the Unreserved category. 22. We are constrained to observe that the facts of the case in Govt. of NCT Delhi & Ors. Vs. Pradeep Kumar & Ors. (supra) was different. Even Page No.# 6/6 otherwise, the candidate of ST category, who migrated to the Unreserved category, had not availed of any concession meant for any special category except having received or undergone a Pre-Promotion Training. 23. In that view of the matter, we have found the order of the Tribunal to be unsustainable in the eyes of law. We, therefore, set it aside. 24. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant