1 2025:CGHC:59225-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No.351 of 2025 1 - Union Of India Through The General Manager, South East Central Railway, Bilaspur (C.G.) 2 - Chief Personnel Officer South East Central Railway, Bilaspur (C.G.) 3 – Railway Recruitment Cell, South East Central Railway, Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 – Divisional Railway Manager, South East Central Railway, Bilaspur (C.G.) Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Bal Ram Meena S/o Shri Gangawishan Meena R/o Village And Post Mairna Chour, Tehsil Mairana Dungar Dist. Sawai Madhopur (Rajasthan) 2 - Girvar Singh Meena S/o Shri Shiv Prasad Meena R/o Village Post Ranila, Tehsil- Bamanwas, District- Sawai Madhopur (Rajasthan) 3 - Ramesh Chandra Meena S/o Shri Chhaju Lal Meena R/o Village And Post Paparda Dhani Bhadrkya Tehsil And District- Dausa (Rajasthan) 4 - Ramniwas Meena S/o Shri Saudan Meena R/o Village- Jodhpura, Post- Todanhgar, Teh- Laxmangarh,- 301413 District- Alwar (Rajasthan) 5 - Drav Singh Meena S/o Shri Ram Singh Meena R/o Village- Leelauti, Post Bajheda, District- Karaulj (Rajasthan) 322234 6 - Bhoora Meena S/o Shri Keshram Meena R/o Village- Post- Mohargi, District- Jaipur (Rajasthan) 303109 Respondent(s) Digitally signed by R NIRALA 2 For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R. K. Mishra, DSG For Respondent(s) : Ms. Deepali Pandey, Advocate Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 05/12/2025 1. The matter in issue is squarely covered by the judgment passed by this Court in the matter of Union of India and others vs Smt. R. Santoshi and others vide judgment dated 05.12.2025 in WPS No.6291/2024 and others and other connected matters. 2. This Court vide judgment dated 05.12.2025 passed in WPS No.6291/2024 and other connected matters held in paras 50 to 55 as under:- “50. Reverting to the facts of the case in the light of the abovementioned judgments, it is quite vivid that the petitioners have failed to establish any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned action so as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. The binding principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, as noticed hereinabove, clearly govern the present controversy and comprehensively negate the contentions urged on behalf of the petitioners. The record does not reveal any violation of statutory provisions, departure from established recruitment norms, or breach of constitutional safeguards that would justify invocation of the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This Court is, therefore, constrained to observe that the challenge mounted by the petitioners rests 3 on broad assertions unsupported by material particulars and fails to meet the threshold for judicial review of administrative action. 51. For the foregoing reasons, and to ensure that the adjudication remains faithful to the applicable legal framework and factual matrix, this Court proceeds to examine, in a structured manner, the following aspects: (A) the chronology of panels, part-panels and replacement lists, and the precise vacancy position as borne out from the record including RTI disclosures; (B) the issue of delay, limitation and laches in respect of distinct categories of petitioners, especially those who approached the CAT belatedly or remained fence-sitters; (C) the legal implications of the Supreme Court’s judgment in Dinesh Kumar Kashyap (supra) and subsequent orders, and the extent to which the reasoning therein applies to the present claimants; (D) the effect, if any, of interlocutory applications, withdrawals, or procedural rejections before the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the eligibility of individual petitioners; and (E) the nature of relief, if any, that may be granted and the permissible scope of consequential directions that can be issued to the respondents consistent with law. 52. Upon a comprehensive consideration of the pleadings, the documentary record including the RTI returns, the CAT’s common order dated 06.03.2024, the precedents relied upon, and the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties at length, this Court records the following conclusions:— • The writ petitions filed by the Union of India / Railways challenging the common order dated 06.03.2024 of the CAT are devoid of merit insofar as they assail the direction permitting administrative examination of the vacancy position and consequential consideration of the candidates 4 on the replacement/wait list arising out of Employment Notice No. SECR/02/2010 dated 15.12.2010. The CAT has not, at any stage, issued a blanket mandate of appointment; rather, it has directed a fact-based administrative verification of vacancies and, if such vacancies persist, consideration of eligible candidates strictly in accordance with RBE No. 73/2008 and other governing norms. This approach is fully aligned with settled principles of law, which recognize that a candidate who has undergone the prescribed selection process and appears on a valid replacement list is ordinarily entitled to consideration for appointment if bona fide and unexhausted vacancies exist. • The Railways’ objections relating to delay and laches, expiry or exhaustion of the panel, absorption of vacancies in subsequent recruitments, and the allegation of “fence- sitting” are undoubtedly significant considerations in public employment jurisprudence. However, these principles cannot be invoked in a sweeping manner to invalidate the CAT’s entire order. The CAT has identified a factual context supported by RTI materials and the operation of successive part-panels suggesting that a bona fide administrative determination of vacancy position is necessary. Accordingly, where on careful administrative scrutiny a particular claim is found barred by delay, tainted by suppression, or invalid due to lawful absorption of vacancies in later recruitment cycles, the Railways shall be at liberty to reject such claims with reasons. Conversely, where genuine vacancies persist and the candidate is found fit, the constitutional requirement of fairness mandates that meritorious candidates should not be denied consideration indefinitely. • The judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dinesh Kumar Kashyap (supra), read with the subsequent miscellaneous orders, confers relief upon candidates who 5 had approached the Tribunal within time; its ratio does not automatically extend to all categories of candidates irrespective of chronology or conduct. The CAT’s order maintains this crucial distinction by requiring an individualized examination of the claims rather than a mechanistic extension of the Supreme Court’s directions. This calibrated approach harmonizes public interest in disciplined recruitment and administrative consistency with the equally compelling obligation to safeguard the legitimate expectations of meritorious candidates on the replacement list. • The allegations of suppression of material facts and the legal consequences of interlocutory steps taken by some candidates before the Hon’ble Supreme Court do not justify a wholesale condemnation of all petitioners in the present batch. The mere filing of interlocutory applications, or their procedural rejection, cannot automatically disqualify every similarly situated candidate. Such issues must be scrutinized individually by the Railways during the administrative verification, and adverse findings, if any, must rest on concrete material. 53. In view of the foregoing, and keeping in mind the public interest in both orderly recruitment and the protection of legitimate claims, this Court finds no infirmity in the CAT’s direction requiring an administrative examination of the vacancy position and, where vacancies are found to subsist and a candidate is found suitable, consideration for appointment in accordance with law. The CAT’s directions represent a balanced and legally sustainable approach which neither prejudges the claims nor forecloses the authority of the administration to reject untenable or time- barred claims. 54. Accordingly, the writ petitions filed by the Union of 6 India / Railways (including WPS No. 6291 of 2024 and all connected matters being WPS No.4069/2025, WPS No.4127/2025, WPS No.4047/2025, WPS No.4134/2025, WPS No.4024/2025, WPS No.4044/2025, WPS No.4120/2025, WPS No.4330/2025, WPS No.4143/2025, WPS No.10041/2025, WPS No.4119/2025, WPS No.4313/2025, WPS No.7203/2024, WPS No.4039/2025, WPS No.2019/2025, WPS No.7198/2024, WPS No.4020/2025, WPS No.7469/2024, WPS No.23/2025, WPS No.2023/2025, WPS No.2037/2025, WPS No.2027/2025, WPS No.2022/2025, WPS No.2026/2025, WPS No.2016/2025, WPS No.1953/2025, WPS No.2030/2025, WPS No.2158/2025, WPS No.2159/2025, WPS No.2121/2025, WPS No.2892/2025, WPS No.2918/2025, WPS No.2912/2025, WPS No.2915/2025, WPS No.2920/2025, WPS No.2891/2025, WPS No.2929/2025, WPS No.2943/2025, WPS No.2910/2025, WPS No.8558/2024, WPS No.7188/2024, WPS No.7199/2024, WPS No.354/2025, WPS No.3149/2025, WPS No.4975/2025, WPS No.4953/2025, WPS No.4659/2025, WPS No.4607/2025, WPS No.4611/2025, WPS No.4562/2025, WPS No.4587/2025 & WPS No.4597/2025) are dismissed, but without any order as to costs subject to the following directions which are intended to be precise, practicable and protective of administrative discretion as well as candidates’ legal rights:- • The respondents (Railways/SECR) shall, through an officer not below the rank of Divisional Railway Manager or an officer of equivalent administrative standing assisted by a small team, carry out a focused vacancy audit of Employment Notice No. SECR/02/2010 dated 15.12.2010 (including all part-panels and replacement/wait lists) and the subsequent recruitments in 2018 and 2019 relevant to the 7 posts in question. The audit shall record, with documentary support, (i) posts originally advertised but not finally filled from the 2010 process, (ii) posts subsequently filled in subsequent recruitments and the authority by which they were filled, and (iii) posts that still, on paper and in fact, remain unfilled and are legally capable of being filled from the 2010 replacement list. • The vacancy audit shall be conducted in a fair, transparent manner and a written vacancy-position report shall be prepared and placed on record before the authority that will consider cases for appointment. The audit shall also identify to the extent possible from available records, those specific slots (if any) that remain legally capable of being filled from the 2010 replacement list. The audit must be completed preferably within a period of four months so that meritorious claimants are not indefinitely delayed. (The Railways shall ensure that the audit is completed and the report placed on the file for further action without undue delay.) • If the vacancy audit establishes that one or more vacancies legitimately remain available to be filled from the replacement list arising out of SECR/02/2010, the Railways shall proceed to consider the names of eligible candidates on that replacement list in order of merit, and shall subject each candidate to the usual departmental checks (antecedents, medical fitness, verification of original documents) before issuing any offer letters. No candidate shall be appointed without fulfilling the normal antecedent and medical fitness checks. • Where the vacancy audit shows that a particular post has already been lawfully absorbed in a subsequent recruitment cycle (for example under CEN 02/2018 or RRC-01/2019), that post shall not be available for fresh appointment from the 2010 replacement list; in such cases the Railways’ 8 recorded position of lawful absorption shall prevail subject to proof to the contrary. • If, during the administrative exercise, it is found that any candidate has suppressed material facts or has engaged in deliberate mala fides (for example, by willful suppression of prior proceedings they instituted and which directly bear on their claim), the Railways may reject such claim after affording the candidate a fair opportunity to be heard. Any such rejection shall be for recorded reasons and shall be subject to usual judicial review. • The Railways shall furnish, as part of the administrative record, the vacancy-audit report and a short note of action taken by the competent appointing authority in respect of each candidate considered under this exercise. Where offer letters are issued, such letters shall make express reference to the replacement list source and be expressly subject to usual verifications. • If any aggrieved party considers that the Railways have acted arbitrarily, or contrary to the requirements of the replacement list or the CAT’s order, such party shall be entitled to approach the CAT for appropriate redress; the remedy of judicial review remains open to prejudiced parties. • There shall be no award of costs. Given the public importance and mixed factual nature of the issues, each party shall bear its own costs. • The precise scheduling and time-line for the audit and consequent administrative steps shall be determined by the competent authority having regard to available administrative exigencies and the requirement of fair and thorough inquiry; nothing in this order fetters the discretion of the appointing authority to adopt a structured timetable consistent with these directions. 9 55. For the foregoing reasons and having regard to the balanced approach mandated by law between the need for orderly public recruitment and the protection of substantive legal rights of meritorious candidates, the writ petitions filed by the Union of India / Railways are dismissed and the CAT’s common order dated 06.03.2024 is upheld to the extent that it directs an administrative examination of the vacancy position and consequent consideration of eligible candidates on the replacement list in conformity with law and these directions. Parties will act in accordance with this order.” 3. In view of the above, the present writ petition is also dismissed in light of the judgment dated 05.12.2025 passed in WPS No.6291/2024 and other connected matters. 4. A copy of the judgment passed in WPS No.6291/2024 and other connected matters be kept along with the record of the present petition. Sd/- Sd/- Rajani Dubey Amitendra Kishore Prasad Judge Judge Nirala