[2025:RJ-JP:4045-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20693/2023 1. Union Of India, Through The General Manager, West Central Railway, Jabalpur 2. The Chairman, Railway Board, 2010,nehru Marg Near Ambedkar Circle, Ajmer. ----Petitioners Versus Surendra Kumar S/o Kailash Chand, R/o Mohalla Devsthan Near Pappu Panwala, Narnaul, District Mahendergarh, Haryana-123- 001 ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Ashish Kumar For Respondent(s) : Mr.Piyush Pani Mathur HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHUBHA MEHTA Order 29/01/2025 AVNEESH JHINGAN, J (ORAL): 1. This petition is filed seeking quashing of order dated 28.04.2023 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur allowing the Original Application (O.A.) filed by the respondent. 2. The relevant facts are that the respondent in pursuance to the notification dated 06.03.2010 applied for the post of Depot Material Superintendent (DMS) Grade-III. The respondent was successfully qualified the written examination held in the year 2012 and appeared for the document verification on 11.02.2013. There were total three vacancies, two for general category and [2025:RJ-JP:4045-DB] (2 of 5) [CW-20693/2023] one for Scheduled Caste. On queries made through Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short, the Act’), it revealed that the respondent was kept at serial No.1 in the waiting list. Further that for two vacancies only one candidate appeared for document verification, yet the respondent was not given appointment. The Railway Recruitment Board, Ajmer (for short ‘RRB’) in their communication dated 28.02.2014 and 27.03.2014 admitted the fact that the respondent was at serial No.1 in the waiting list, yet his name was not sent to the railways. No reasons were given for filling one vacancy of general category when the two posts were advertised and candidates were available. There was no reason put-forth by the Western Central Railway (for short, ‘WCR’) for not seeking name of the respondent from RRB for the unfilled vacancy. The Tribunal held action of the petitioner to be arbitrary and issued directions for giving appointment to the respondent on the post of DMS Grade-III or on an equivalent post. Hence, the present petition. 3. During pendency of this petition vide order dated 08.11.2024, learned counsel for the petitioner was directed to file an affidavit stating as to how many names were sent in the general category and whether the candidate at serial No.2 in the merit list had appeared for document verification or not. 4. The affidavit of Shri Nemi Chand Sivasia, Member Secretary, Railway Recruitment Board, Ajmer has been filed. It would be relevant to quote para 4 & 5 of the additional affidavit:- “That the petitioner, Mr. Surendra Kumar, son of Mr. Kailash Chand (Roll No.12105911002501) applied for Category [2025:RJ-JP:4045-DB] (3 of 5) [CW-20693/2023] No. 91 post of Depot Material Superintendent Gr-III. Written examination for this post was conducted on 22.04.2012. On the basis of written exam performance, 03 candidates were provisionally selected for document verification vide letter No. RRB/AJ/RECTT/5/10/91 dated 27.12.2012, Additionally, 02 candidates (including Mr. Surendra Kumar) were called on provisional basis in waiting list beyond the actual number of vacancies. It is submitted that during document verification, out of 03 provisionally called candidates, 01 candidate namely Neetu Singh remained absent while both additionally called candidates were present. Document verification attendance sheet dated 11.02.2013 is attached herewith and marked as ANNEXURE AA1. “That based on written examination and document verification, total 02 candidates (UR-01 & SC-01) were empanelled on 22.02.2013 and the panel was forwarded to General Manager (Personal)/West Central Railway, Jabalpur (Respondent No. 01) vide this office letter No. RRB/AJ/RECTT/5/10/91/2010 dated 25.02.2013. A copy of letter dated 25.02.2013 are annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE AA2.” 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the life span of the waiting list is for one year and the respondent failed to file O.A. within one year. The grievance raised is that the Tribunal has issued directions to appoint the respondent against the future vacancies. It is submitted that the one general category vacancy left vacant in pursuance to the notification dated 06.03.2010, was re-advertised on 22.02.2013. 6. As per contra, the arbitrary action of the RRB and WCR forced the respondent into litigation. Contention is that there is no justification given for not filling the second post inspite of the successful candidate being available. 7. The undisputed facts are that (i) the respondent qualified the written exam, was at serial No.3 in the merit list and was kept at serial No.1 of the waiting list; (ii) one of the candidates from serial Nos.1 & 2 did not appear for document verification; (iii) the [2025:RJ-JP:4045-DB] (4 of 5) [CW-20693/2023] respondent was to be appointed on the second vacancy yet his name was not forwarded and considered and lastly (iv) before expiry of period of one year for which the waiting list was alive, the unfilled vacancy of general category was re- advertised on 22.02.2013. 8. The contention that the respondent had not filed O.A. within one year i.e. till the waiting list could have been acted upon lacks merit. The respondent was corresponding with the RRB and the WCR. The information received under the Act revealed that respondent was not appointed inspite of an unfilled vacancy and he being at serial No.1 of the waiting list. The conduct of the petitioner contradicts the objection raised. As per respondent, the waiting list was alive for a period of one year but instead of giving appointment to the respondent who was at serial No.1 and before expiry of the one year, the vacant post was advertised. Neither before the Tribunal nor before this court an explanation has been put-forth for keeping the post vacant inspite of qualifying and successful candidate being there at serial No.1 of the waiting list. The attempt made is to pass the buck between WCR and RRB. The Tribunal rightly held that there is no vested right of appointment in favour of the successful candidate but the appointment cannot be refused by an arbitrary unexplained action of the petitioner. 9. The Tribunal is justified in issuing direction to give an appointment to the respondent on the post of DMS Grade-III or an equivalent post. [2025:RJ-JP:4045-DB] (5 of 5) [CW-20693/2023] 10. Be that as it may, it is clarified that directions of the Tribunal shall be read that the respondent shall be given an appointment on the post of DMS, Grade-III or an equivalent post. 11. The writ petition is dismissed. (SHUBHA MEHTA),J (AVNEESH JHINGAN),J Monika/Lakshya/47 Whether Reportable:Yes