Order : Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J. 1. Since all the matters arise out of the same cause of action, and although the Union of India/Railways has filed these petitions being aggrieved by separate Original Applications, the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, Jabalpur (hereinafter referred to as “CAT”) has adjudicated all the Original Applications analogously by a common order dated 06.03.2024 leading case bearing Original Application No.203/12/2019 and 49 analogous cases. Accordingly, all the writ petitions are clubbed together, heard together, and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The Union of India/Railways appears to be aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed by the learned CAT, wherein the CAT has decided the matter on the basis of the judgment rendered in Dinesh Kumar Kashyap & Others v. South Eastern Central Railway & Others, Civil Appeal Nos.11360–11363 of 2018 (arising out of SLP (C) Nos.29668–29671 of 2017) along with Civil Appeal No.11364 of 2018 (arising out of SLP (C) No.6165 of 2018) . In the said decision, the Hon’ble Supreme Court directed the Union of India to consider the cases of the petitioners who had approached the CAT and to grant them appointment over and above the first selected candidates of the selection process which commenced in the year 2012, but immediately below the candidates of the 2010 selection list for the purpose of seniority. The Supreme Court further held that such petitioners would be entitled only to notional benefits from the date of deemed appointment for the purposes of pay fixation and seniority. Directions were also issued to the South Eastern Central Railway (for short, ‘SECR’) to comply with the judgment and to offer appointment to all eligible candidates within three months. Pursuant thereto, the Railways published a provisional part panel of 115 candidates on 20.08.2019, out of which 91 candidates were stated to have qualified. Thereafter, in Civil Appeal No.11360 of 2018, the Hon’ble Supreme Court further clarified that the benefit of its judgment would extend to all persons who had filed petitions before the CAT. 3. Most of the private respondents herein had filed their Original Applications before the CAT prior to the passing of the order dated 01.03.2019; most of them had approached the CAT earlier, whereas a few filed their petitions thereafter. 3. Most of the private respondents herein had filed their Original Applications before the CAT prior to the passing of the order dated 01.03.2019; most of them had approached the CAT earlier, whereas a few filed their petitions thereafter. On merits, however, their cases are similarly situated to those of the petitioners in Dinesh Kumar Kashyap (supra), who had filed SLPs before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, and therefore the private respondents’ claims deserved to be allowed by the CAT. In fact, on merits, the private respondents herein, who have preferred applications before the CAT, stand on a better footing than those who had been granted relief by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In Dinesh Kumar Kashyap (supra), the Original Applications were decided on 06.03.2024, directing the Railways to examine the vacancy position under SECR’s Employment Notification No. 02/2010 dated 15.12.2010 and, if vacancies existed, to consider the petitioners for appointment to Group ‘D’ posts under the replacement quota as per RBE No. 73/2008 dated 17.06.2008, and thereafter to issue appointment orders to all candidates found suitable and fit. 4. Being aggrieved by the order dated 06.03.2024 passed by the CAT, the Union of India/Railways has filed the present writ petitions seeking to quash and set aside the said order in all connected matters. 5. For the sake of convenience, WPS No. 6291 of 2024 is treated as the lead case, and the facts thereof are taken as the basis for deciding all the connected writ petitions by this common order. 6. For the disposal of the present writ petitions, the brief facts, shorn of unnecessary details, are that the petitioner–Railways is aggrieved by the common order dated 06.03.2024 passed by the learned CAT Jabalpur Bench in different Original Applications leading case Original Application No. 203/12/2019 and 49 analogous cases, whereby the CAT directed the petitioners to re- examine the vacancy position under Employment Notice No. SECR/02/2010 dated 15.12.2010 and, if vacancies were found to exist, to consider the petitioners for appointment to Group ‘D’ posts under the replacement quota in terms of RBE No. 73/2008 and thereafter issue appointment orders to those found suitable. 7. The controversy emanates from Employment Notice No.SECR/02/2010 issued for filling up 5798 vacancies (5540 Non- PH + 258 PH), wherein candidates equivalent to 20% over and above the notified vacancies were called for document verification as per Circular dated 02.07.2008. 7. The controversy emanates from Employment Notice No.SECR/02/2010 issued for filling up 5798 vacancies (5540 Non- PH + 258 PH), wherein candidates equivalent to 20% over and above the notified vacancies were called for document verification as per Circular dated 02.07.2008. The panel of 5540 Non-PH candidates was published through three part-panels dated 11.03.2013, 09.07.2013 and 03.03.2014, and no shortfall existed, as 55 candidates from the 20% extra list made good the panel against 47 impersonation cases and 08 medically unfit candidates. 8. Several candidates from the 20% extra list had earlier approached the CAT in 2013; their claims were rejected by the CAT on 13.02.2015, which order was affirmed by the High Court on 05.08.2015. However, in Dinesh Kumar Kashyap (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court, vide judgment dated 27.11.2018, set aside the orders of the High Court and CAT and extended the benefit of the 02.07.2008 Circular only to those petitioners who had approached the CAT. Subsequent directions dated 01.03.2019 clarified that the benefit was confined strictly to persons who had filed petitions before the CAT. In compliance, provisional part-panels dated 02.01.2019, 24.04.2019 and 20.08.2019 were issued. 9. Thereafter, 91 similarly placed candidates, whose names appeared in the 20% list but who had not approached the CAT earlier, sought impleadment / directions before the Supreme Court. Their applications were refused registration by the Registrar on 06.03.2020 and their Miscellaneous Applications were dismissed on 12.02.2021, reiterating that the Supreme Court had not issued any order in rem for grant of appointment to all 20% extra candidates. 10. Meanwhile, Railway Board carried out fresh vacancy assessments and issued subsequent recruitment notifications Nos. CEN 02/2018 and RRC-01/2019 against which 905 and further candidates were duly empanelled. Unfilled posts from the 2010 notification were duly absorbed in these later recruitment cycles. 11. It was thereafter that the present respondents, who had remained fence-sitters and had approached the CAT only in 2019, filed Original Applications seeking appointment against alleged remaining vacancies under the 2010 replacement quota. Their claim was opposed by the Railways on grounds of limitation, non- existence of vacancies, and the fact that the alleged shortfall had already been absorbed in the recruitment process of 2018 and 2019. The CAT, however, directed reconsideration and potential appointment of the petitioners, leading to the filing of the present writ petitions by the Railways. 12. Mr. Ramakant Mishra, learned Deputy Solicitor General assisted by Mr. The CAT, however, directed reconsideration and potential appointment of the petitioners, leading to the filing of the present writ petitions by the Railways. 12. Mr. Ramakant Mishra, learned Deputy Solicitor General assisted by Mr. Rishabh Deo Singh, Ms. Sweta Rai and Mr. Niraj Baghel, learned Central Government Counsels assailed the impugned order primarily on the ground that the Original Applications filed by the respondents in the year 2019 suffer from gross delay and laches. It is submitted that the respondents approached the CAT nearly five years after the publication of the panels dated 11.03.2013, 09.07.2013 and 03.03.2014, and therefore, the Original Applications ought to have been dismissed at the threshold in view of Section 21(1) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. Reliance is placed on Secretary to Government of India v. Shivram Mahadu Gaikwad , 1995 Supp SCC 231 and Ramesh Chand Sharma v. Udham Singh Kamal , 2000 (1) ATJ 178 , to contend that limitation is required to be examined prior to entering into merits. 13. It is further contended that the CAT failed to appreciate that the validity of the panel is only for two years, and upon expiry of such period, no candidate can claim appointment as a matter of right. Reliance is placed on State of U.P. and others v. Harish Chandra and others , 1996 (3) SCALE 730 and M.P. Electricity Board v. Virendra Kumar Sharma , AIR 2002 SC 2635 , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has upheld the rationale behind prescribing limited currency of a panel to ensure that subsequent and better candidates get an opportunity to compete. 14. Mr. Mishra submits that the respondents are fence-sitters, who did not challenge the non-selection at the appropriate stage and woke up only after the decision in Dinesh Kumar Kashyap (supra). The petitioners in Dinesh Kumar Kashyap (supra) had approached the CAT promptly, well before the expiry of the panel, whereas in the present case, the Original Applications were instituted long after the life of the panel had expired. Reliance is placed on State of U.P. and others v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava and others passed in Civil Appeal No.9849/2014 , to argue that benefits cannot be extended to those who sleep over their rights and seek parity only after noticing that similarly placed persons have succeeded in earlier litigation. Reliance is placed on State of U.P. and others v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava and others passed in Civil Appeal No.9849/2014 , to argue that benefits cannot be extended to those who sleep over their rights and seek parity only after noticing that similarly placed persons have succeeded in earlier litigation. It is further urged that four subsequent recruitment cycles have already been completed after issuance of Notification No. SECR/02/2010, and all resultant vacancies have been duly included in the recruitment notifications of the years 2018 and 2019. Therefore, the direction of the CAT to “examine the vacancy position” is a futile exercise, particularly when the Railways have categorically placed on record that no vacancy exists under the 2010 notification. 15. Mr. Mishra further submits that the respondents belonged only to the 20% extra candidates called for document verification, which does not confer any vested right to appointment. Reliance is placed on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sanjay Bhattacharjee v. Union of India (10.03.1997) , wherein it was held that mere inclusion in a waiting list or being called for document verification does not create a legally enforceable right to claim appointment or to seek a direction restraining the employer from filling subsequent vacancies. It is further submitted that the CAT has failed to consider that the issue suffers with res judicata in view of W.P. (C) No. 779/2021 decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 30.07.2021, holding that nothing survives in matters pertaining to the selection of the year 2008, and the controversy had already attained finality through Civil Appeal Nos. 11360-63 of 2018. 16. Mr. Mishra argues that the respondents suppressed from the CAT’s about the order dated 06.03.2020 passed by the Supreme Court rejecting their applications for impleadment/directions (M.A. Dy. No. 41314/2019), and the dismissal of Misc. Application No. 241/2021 by the Supreme Court on 12.02.2021. These orders categorically hold that the benefit of the judgment dated 27.11.2018 read with order dated 01.03.2019 is restricted only to those who had approached the CAT prior to 27.11.2018. The CAT therefore committed an error in extending the benefit beyond the class of persons contemplated by the Supreme Court. 17. It is submitted by Mr. Mishra that the CAT misinterpreted the order dated 01.03.2019 of the Supreme Court in M.A. Nos. The CAT therefore committed an error in extending the benefit beyond the class of persons contemplated by the Supreme Court. 17. It is submitted by Mr. Mishra that the CAT misinterpreted the order dated 01.03.2019 of the Supreme Court in M.A. Nos. 439– 442/2019, wherein the expression “shall” and “had approached” clearly restricts the benefit only to candidates who were petitioners before the CAT at the material time. Hence, the impugned order results in impermissible enlargement of the scope of the Supreme Court’s judgment. Reliance is further placed on O.A. No. 819/2019 decided by CAT, Principal Bench, wherein it has been held that candidates approaching the CAT after the Supreme Court’s judgment in Dinesh Kumar Kashyap (supra) are not entitled to claim benefit thereof. 18. Mr. Mishra further urged that the CAT failed to apply the well-established maxim vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniunt, the law assists the vigilant and not those who sleep over their rights. The respondents have approached the CAT belatedly in 2019 only because some persons secured relief from the Supreme Court, and such indolent or speculative litigation cannot be entertained. It is also argued that the CAT adopted an approach of undue sympathy, which is impermissible, as held in State of U.P. and others v. Rajmati Singh , Civil Appeal No. 9329 of 2022, wherein the Supreme Court cautioned that misplaced sympathy leads to creation of illegitimate expectations and imposes unwarranted burdens on public administration. 19. It is further submitted that during the pendency of these Original Applications, these petitioners did not disclose the dismissal of their Supreme Court petitions before the CAT and did not withdraw their pending Original Applications, despite having undertaken before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the fate of their Original Applications would be governed by the Supreme Court’s decision in WPC 779/2021. Consequently, the Tribunal passed a common order dated 06.03.2024 in favour of all petitioners, including those who had filed WPC 779/2021, without knowledge of the Supreme Court’s prior dismissal. Consequently, the Tribunal passed a common order dated 06.03.2024 in favour of all petitioners, including those who had filed WPC 779/2021, without knowledge of the Supreme Court’s prior dismissal. Learned counsel submit that this conduct of suppression of material facts amounts to a misrepresentation before the Tribunal and engages the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and various High Courts in cases including Union of India v. Subit Kumar Das , 2025 INSC 1235 (Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) Diary No. 57192 of 2024), M.C.D. v. State of Delhi , (2005) 4 SCC 605 and M/s Seemax Construction (P) Ltd v. State Bank of India, AIR 1992 DEL 197 (also reported as (1993) 1 CUR R 325) , which establish that suppression of material facts disentitles parties from obtaining relief and constitutes an abuse of process. 20. Reliance is also placed on the doctrines of Fence-Sitters, Res Judicata, and Stare Decisis. Learned counsel submit that the 84 petitioners who filed WPC 779/2021 and related IA/MA applications became fence-sitters when they invoked the judgment in Dinesh Kumar Kashyap (supra) during the pendency of their Original Applications. As the Supreme Court dismissed their petition in WPC 779/2021, they are not entitled to any relief before the Tribunal or this Court. The Tribunal, therefore, committed a manifest error in granting relief under the common order dated 06.03.2024, as it was bound by the Supreme Court’s judgment. 21. On these grounds, it is submitted by Mr. Mishra that the impugned order suffers from grave errors of law and deserves to be set aside. 22. Per contra, Mr. Prashant Bhushan, Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Nisha Tiwari, Advocate, Mr. B.P. Rao, Ms. Pooja Sinha, Mr. Sunil Kumar Pandey, Mr. Sudeep Verma, Vivek Kumar Tripathi, Mr. A.V. Shridhar and Ms. Deepali Pandey, learned counsels appearing for the respective respondents/interveners opposed the submissions advanced by learned Deputy Solicitor General and submits that the facts and circumstances of the present batch of writ petitions are distinct and require separate consideration for different sets of respondents. It is submitted that during the pendency of the Original Applications (OAs) before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Bilaspur and Jabalpur Benches, certain petitioners, numbering 84 to 91, had approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court by filing various Interlocutory Applications (IA Nos. It is submitted that during the pendency of the Original Applications (OAs) before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Bilaspur and Jabalpur Benches, certain petitioners, numbering 84 to 91, had approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court by filing various Interlocutory Applications (IA Nos. 175975/2019 and 175981/2019 in MA(D) 41314/2019) in Dinesh Kumar Kashyap (supra) seeking impleadment and extension of relief in the Civil Appeal arising from that case. Both these applications were dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 6.3.2020. Subsequently, the same petitioners filed MA 241/2021 challenging the order of the Registrar of the Supreme Court, which was dismissed on 12.2.2021. Thereafter, about 84 of these petitioners filed Writ Petition (C) No. 779/2021 (Yogendra Kumar Ram & Ors. v. General Manager Railways & Ors.), placing similar facts and seeking similar reliefs as in their pending Original Applications before CAT. The Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed WPC 779/2021 on 30.7.2021. Learned counsel submit that reliance has been placed upon the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in these matters and the principles therein are binding on all subordinate forums. 23. Learned counsels further submit that none of these 56 respondents filed any IA, MA, or WPC 779/2021 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. They did not rely on the judgment of Dinesh Kumar Kashyap (supra) in their respective Original Applications before the Tribunal and have not suppressed any material facts. Therefore, principles of fence-sitting, res judicata, or suppression of material facts do not apply to them. Learned counsels submit that there is no delay in filing their Original Applications since the limitation period starts only from the date of the first rejection letter issued by Railways on 30.9.2021, and all Original Applications were filed before the expiry of two years from that date. 24. It is submitted that the unfilled vacancies from Employment Notice No. 02/2010 continued to exist even after issuance of subsequent panels, and these respondents are waitlisted candidates for the vacancies which remain operative. The circulars such as RBE 121/2005 relating to the currency of panels are not applicable to wait-listed candidates, and therefore, 56 respondents are entitled to adjudication of their claims independently from that of the Supreme Court’s decision in WPC 779/2021 relating to other petitioners. 25. The circulars such as RBE 121/2005 relating to the currency of panels are not applicable to wait-listed candidates, and therefore, 56 respondents are entitled to adjudication of their claims independently from that of the Supreme Court’s decision in WPC 779/2021 relating to other petitioners. 25. In view of the foregoing, learned counsels for the respective respondents jointly submit that this Court may adjudicate the writ petitions in two separate streams: (i) in respect of the 84 petitioners who had filed WPC 779/2021 and related IA/MA, where the relief granted by the Tribunal was contrary to Supreme Court judgment, and (ii) in respect of the 56 respondents who did not approach the Supreme Court and are not bound by WPC 779/2021. Such distinction is necessary in the interest of justice and to prevent further unnecessary litigation at the Apex Court level. 26. It has been contended that the impugned order passed by the CAT does not suffer from any infirmity and has rightly directed consideration of the petitioners for appointment, in view of the admitted position that a large number of vacancies under the original Notification No. SECR/03/2012 dated 25.08.2012 are still lying unfilled. It is submitted that the recruitment was governed by R.B.E. No. 73/2008, which mandated calling 20% extra candidates for document verification to avoid shortfall. Several selected candidates did not join, resulting in the need to operate the replacement/wait list, but the petitioners failed to issue appointment orders to eligible higher-merit candidates, including the interveners. It is contended that the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Civil Appeal Nos. 11360–11363 of 2018, directed that the benefit of the selection process be extended to all similarly placed candidates. Contrary to this mandate, the petitioners selectively appointed persons with lower merit, overlooking candidates placed much higher in the merit list. A detailed list of such higher- merit wait-listed candidates has been placed on record. It is pointed out that the RTI reply dated 10.09.2024 reveals that 577 vacancies still exist in SECR Raipur Division alone, which completely falsifies the petitioners’ plea that no vacancy remains. Therefore, the CAT was justified in directing the petitioners to consider the claim of the interveners against the existing vacancies. It is pointed out that the RTI reply dated 10.09.2024 reveals that 577 vacancies still exist in SECR Raipur Division alone, which completely falsifies the petitioners’ plea that no vacancy remains. Therefore, the CAT was justified in directing the petitioners to consider the claim of the interveners against the existing vacancies. It is further submitted that the petitioners have themselves given appointments to several candidates who stood far below the interveners in the consolidated merit list, thereby violating the constitutional mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The appointment of less-meritorious candidates while denying consideration to higher-merit ones is ex facie arbitrary and discriminatory. 27. The interveners had approached the CAT bona fidely seeking consideration for appointment. Some of them, on the incorrect advice of certain counsels, were misguided into filing an impleadment application in a disposed matter. The said impleadment application was dismissed by the Registrar without notice or opportunity. Thereafter, without their authorization, a Miscellaneous Applications and subsequently an SLPs were filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The interveners thereafter filed affidavits before the CAT clarifying that these filings were done without their consent or instruction, and that they never intended to abandon their substantive claims pending before the CAT. Learned counsels submits that such mistaken or unauthorized procedural steps cannot be treated as res judicata, nor can they defeat the interveners’ substantive rights, particularly when the Hon’ble Supreme Court did not adjudicate their claims on merits. It is further contended that the principle of substantive justice over procedural technicalities applies squarely to the present case, especially when vacancies exist and higher-merit candidates remain unappointed. 28. Reliance is placed upon the judgment delivered by Patna High Court ( C.W.J.C. No. 2372/2023, Santosh Kumar & Ors. v. State of Bihar ), by which the High Court has affirmed that depriving higher-merit candidates of appointment causes irreparable prejudice. 29. Reliance is also placed in Ashwani Kumar & Ors. v. State of Bihar, AIR 1997 SC 1628 , to contend that all persons similarly situated, whether they have approached the Court or not, must be similarly treated; those waiting in the wings cannot be denied relief granted to others unless the relief is personal. 29. Reliance is also placed in Ashwani Kumar & Ors. v. State of Bihar, AIR 1997 SC 1628 , to contend that all persons similarly situated, whether they have approached the Court or not, must be similarly treated; those waiting in the wings cannot be denied relief granted to others unless the relief is personal. Further in Amrit Lal Berry v. Excise , (1975) 4 SCC 714 , to submit that a declaration of law obtained by one citizen should extend to others similarly situated and lastly in K.I. Shephard & Ors. v. Union of India, (1987) 4 SCC 431 , to contend that excluded employees who have not approached Court should not be penalized. to assert that once the Court has declared the law, similarly placed persons cannot be denied the same benefit, even if they did not earlier approach the Court. 30. It is further submitted that the interveners are admittedly higher in merit and similarly situated to the candidates who have been granted appointments pursuant to judicial directions. Denial of appointment to them despite availability of vacancies amounts to hostile discrimination. It is lastly submitted that the CAT has passed a balanced and lawful order directing the petitioners to verify vacancies and consider the interveners for appointment. No prejudice is caused to the administration, as vacant posts admittedly remain. Hence, the writ petitions deserves to be dismissed. 31. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties at considerable length and with patience, and have perused the records, annexures and pleadings with the utmost circumspection. 32. The matter raises mixed questions of fact and law requiring careful scrutiny of the chronology of events, the rival contentions advanced before this Court and the CAT, the scope and import of orders passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 11360–11363 of 2018 and the subsequent miscellaneous orders, the exercise of discretion by the Railways in operating panels and wait-lists, and the legal consequences of interlocutory steps taken by certain petitioners before the Hon’ble Supreme Court while their Original Applications were pending before the CAT. 33. 11360–11363 of 2018 and the subsequent miscellaneous orders, the exercise of discretion by the Railways in operating panels and wait-lists, and the legal consequences of interlocutory steps taken by certain petitioners before the Hon’ble Supreme Court while their Original Applications were pending before the CAT. 33. We have also considered the pleadings and counter-pleadings, the CAT’s common order dated 06.03.2024 and related orders, the review petitions and the orders thereon, the relevant recruitment notifications and Railway Board circulars (including R.B.E. No. 73/2008), the various panels and part-panels published between 2013 and 2019, the communications and RTI returns produced by the parties showing the vacancy position, and the judgments and authorities relied upon by the parties on limitation, res judicata, stare decisis, the principle against “fence-sitters”, and the effect of suppression of material facts. 34. We have also taken into account the factual averments of respondents/interveners who claim that they stood in the waiting list and were not given appointments despite the existence of vacancies, and the submissions of the petitioners that subsequent recruitment drives have absorbed the alleged vacancies and that several of the petitioners slept over their rights or improperly pursued remedies before the Supreme Court. 35. Having regard to the above materials and the significant public interest in the sound and consistent administration of recruitment processes in public employment, we propose to examine, in the sequence that follows, (i) the temporal sequence of publications and panels and the precise nature of the cause of action in each case, (ii) whether the CAT erred in admitting and adjudicating the Original Applications without rejecting them at the threshold on grounds of delay and laches, (iii) whether the benefit of the Supreme Court’s decisions can be extended to the several categories of petitioners and, if so, to whom, (iv) the legal effect, if any, of the interlocutory applications, MAs and Writ Petitions filed before the Supreme Court during the pendency of the Original Applications and (v) whether, on the totality of the record, equitable and legal relief in the form of consideration/appointment under the replacement quota is warranted for the interveners/respondents. 36. For the reasons set out hereafter, we now proceed to consider these questions in detail. 37. 36. For the reasons set out hereafter, we now proceed to consider these questions in detail. 37. From a careful perusal of the impugned common order dated 06.03.2024 passed by the learned CAT in O.A. No. 203/12/2019 (lead matter) and the 49 analogous Original Applications, the following facts, rival contentions and legal questions emerge and require detailed adjudication. 38. First, the factual matrix is straightforward and must be set out with precision. Employment Notification No. SECR/02/2010 dated 15.12.2010 was issued by the Railway Recruitment Cell, Bilaspur, for recruitment to erstwhile Group ‘D’ posts. The selection process consisted of written test, Physical Efficiency Test, document verification and medical examination. In order to guard against any shortfall in the final panels, candidates equivalent to 20% over and above the advertised vacancies were called for document verification and medical examination in terms of Railway Board Circular RBE No. 73/2008 dated 02.07.2008. A series of part-panels were published between 2013 and 2019. Selectees failed to join for various reasons (impersonation, medically unfit, non-joining) and, as a result, a number of vacancies remained unfilled. The petitioners in these Original Applications were placed in the “20% replacement” list and claim that, having cleared all stages of selection and being medically declared fit, they are entitled to appointment against the vacancies still lying unfilled in that recruitment process. 39. Second, the procedural history is long and layered and must be followed chronologically to appreciate the legal questions. A cluster of similarly placed candidates earlier litigated before the CAT and the High Court; orders of the CAT (inter alia dated 13.02.2015/24.01.2017) and the High Court were, in part, set aside by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dinesh Kumar Kashyap (supra). The Supreme Court’s judgment dated 27.11.2018 afforded relief to those petitioners who had approached the CAT; subsequently, by orders dated 01.03.2019 in M.A. Nos. 439– 442/2019 and in consequent compliance proceedings, provisional/part-panels were published in 2019 and appointments were made pursuant to that judgment. During the intervening period further panels were issued and, as recorded in the CAT’s order, up to 197 vacancies were filled after the Supreme Court’s directions but, according to the petitioners, a substantial number of vacancies some 427 according to their pleadings and the CAT’s findings remained unfilled. 40. During the intervening period further panels were issued and, as recorded in the CAT’s order, up to 197 vacancies were filled after the Supreme Court’s directions but, according to the petitioners, a substantial number of vacancies some 427 according to their pleadings and the CAT’s findings remained unfilled. 40. Third, the main rival contentions may be crystallised into a few discrete legal issues which this Court must answer: (a) whether the Original Applications which were filed in or about 2019 are barred by delay and laches having regard to the date of publication of the early panels (2013–2014) and the two-year currency of panels ordinarily recognised in Railway practice; (b) whether the benefit of the Supreme Court’s judgment in Dinesh Kumar Kashyap (supra) extends to the present petitioners and, if so, to which of them (i.e., the consequence of the Supreme Court clarification orders and the doctrine of “fence-sitters”/personal application of relief); (c) whether the CAT rightly directed the Railways to examine the vacancy position and, if vacancies exist, to consider the petitioners for appointment under the replacement quota in terms of RBE No. 73/2008; and (d) the legal effect, if any, of interlocutory steps taken by some petitioners before the Supreme Court (impleadment applications, miscellaneous applications and Writ Petition (C) No. 779/2021) while their Original Applications remained pending before the CAT. 41. Fourth, on the question of limitation and laches the record demonstrates two competing legal propositions. On the one hand, the Railways correctly point out that a selection panel ordinarily has a limited currency, the practice and several decisions recognise a two-year period for the operational validity of a select list/panel and that long delays, unexplained, may disentitle a candidate to relief. On the other hand, the petitioners and the CAT rely upon the continuing nature of the cause of action so long as vacancies persist and the wait-list is operated: where a vacancy continues to exist and is capable of being filled from the replacement list, a litigant’s grievance is not necessarily barred by mechanical reliance on the date of the first panel. This Court must therefore evaluate, case by case, whether the petitioners’ claims were time-barred at the threshold or whether the cause of action was revived or continued by subsequent official acts (representations, rejection letters, continuing non- appointment and the publication/operation of subsequent panels). 42. This Court must therefore evaluate, case by case, whether the petitioners’ claims were time-barred at the threshold or whether the cause of action was revived or continued by subsequent official acts (representations, rejection letters, continuing non- appointment and the publication/operation of subsequent panels). 42. Fifth, the scope and effect of the Supreme Court’s decisions require close examination. The judgment in Dinesh Kumar Kashyap (supra) extended relief to those petitioners who had approached the CAT and directed compliance in a manner that, by its terms, assisted that class; subsequent orders of the Supreme Court clarified and enlarged the scope of relief to certain categories who had filed proceedings in time. The doctrine of “fence-sitters” and the maxim that law aids the vigilant (vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniunt) are well established; where a litigant slept over his rights and only later sought parity after others had succeeded, courts have declined to grant relief on equitable grounds. But these equitable principles cannot be mechanically applied to deny substantive legal rights where the right to appointment flows from an extant replacement list and available vacancies and where no finding of mala fides or deliberate suppression by an applicant is made on the record. Moreover, where the Supreme Court dismissed interlocutory applications for want of maintainability or on procedural grounds (e.g., by the Registrar), such procedural dismissals do not ipso facto decide the substantive entitlement of the petitioners who were not directly before the Supreme Court for adjudication on merits. 43. Sixth, the CAT’s direction to examine the vacancy position in Employment Notice No. SECR/02/2010 and, if vacancies exist, to consider the petitioners for appointment under the replacement quota in terms of RBE No. 73/2008 proceeds from two self- evident considerations: (a) the factual finding (based on RTI returns and other material) that a substantial number of posts remained unfilled after initial panels and even after subsequent part-panels; and (b) the legal position that candidates who have completed the prescribed selection process and are on the replacement/wait list are prima facie entitled to consideration for appointment where vacancies exist and retiring the panel alone cannot be used as a shield to deny an applicant his legal claim without inquiry. The CAT’s order is neither absolute nor final: it prescribes examination of vacancy position and medical/fitness verification before offers of appointment are to be issued; it thus preserves administrative discretion while ensuring that the merits of eligible candidates are not left unexamined. 44. Seventh, the question of suppression of material facts and fraud on court must be approached with caution. If it were demonstrated that certain petitioners deliberately withheld the fact of prior proceedings or undertakings given to the Supreme Court for the very purpose of securing advantage before the CAT, that would call for severe judicial reprobation and could disentitle them to relief. The present record, however, contains averments of bona fide reliance on legal counsel, instances where affidavits and impleadment applications were filed (and in some cases dismissed by the Registrar) and contentions that some petitioners did not authorise certain filings. This Court must weigh carefully whether the conduct of particular petitioners amounted to such suppression as to render relief unjustifiable; an across-the-board inference of mala fides would be inappropriate unless supported by specific findings. 45. Eighth, the competing public interest considerations are salient and must inform the Court’s approach. On one side lies the public interest in orderly, predictable and timely recruitment for public employment and in preventing undue burden on the public exchequer by reopening long-closed selections. On the other side is the public interest in ensuring that meritorious candidates who have cleared all stages of a competitive process are not deprived of appointment through administrative inaction or selective appointments of lesser-merit candidates. The Court’s task is to achieve balance: to prevent opportunistic litigation and to deter fence-sitting, while at the same time ensuring that genuine legal entitlements are not trampled by technicalities or by administrative indifference. 46. Ninth, having regard to the above, the approach adopted by the CAT, a direction for administrative verification of vacancy position and consequential consideration of eligible candidates on the wait-list, is one that seeks to reconcile these competing considerations. It does not automatically or mechanically order appointments; it requires the respondents to examine the position, to ascertain whether vacancies remain that can legally be filled from the replacement list, and only thereafter to issue offer-letters to those found fit. This process preserves the Railways’ managerial discretion and simultaneously protects the legal rights of the petitioners. 47. It does not automatically or mechanically order appointments; it requires the respondents to examine the position, to ascertain whether vacancies remain that can legally be filled from the replacement list, and only thereafter to issue offer-letters to those found fit. This process preserves the Railways’ managerial discretion and simultaneously protects the legal rights of the petitioners. 47. Tenth and finally, it will now be necessary to adjudicate the following matters with specificity: (i) identify which petitioners (if any) are clearly time-barred or disentitled by conduct (i.e., those who are “fence-sitters” or who have suppressed material facts); (ii) identify which petitioners have bona fide and subsisting claims arising from vacancies that remain unfilled and who are therefore entitled to consideration under the replacement quota; (iii) determine whether any appointments already made by the Railways in later recruitments have lawfully absorbed the alleged vacancies and, if so, to what extent; and (iv) frame suitable directions to the respondents that are precise, practicable and consonant with law, for instance, a limited, time-bound vacancy audit, medical verification of those on the replacement list, and issuance of appointment letters where legally permissible, subject to usual checks of antecedents and fitness. 48. In Dinesh Kumar Kashyap (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under :- “5. Aggrieved, the appellants approached the High Court of Chhattisgarh in which they also took another plea that persons from the 20% extra replacement panel had been offered appointment by the Railways in many other zones and it was only in the 3 divisions of Bilaspur, Raipur and Nagpur that this was not done. The writ petition was dismissed holding that the appellants herein had no right and also that merely because some appointments have been made in other zones from the replacement panel, it would not create any right in the appellants. f. The main issue which arises before us is whether the SECR could have ignored the 20% extra panel despite the letter dated 02.07.2008 without giving any cogent reason for the same. No doubt, it is true, that mere selection does not give any vested right to the selected candidate to be appointed. f. The main issue which arises before us is whether the SECR could have ignored the 20% extra panel despite the letter dated 02.07.2008 without giving any cogent reason for the same. No doubt, it is true, that mere selection does not give any vested right to the selected candidate to be appointed. At the same time when a large number of posts are lying vacant and selection process has been followed then the employer must satisfy the court as to why it did not resort to and appoint the selected candidates, even if they are from the replacement panel. Just because discretion is vested in the authority, it does not mean that this discretion can be exercised arbitrarily. No doubt, it is not incumbent upon the employer to fill all the posts but it must give reasons and satisfy the court that it had some grounds for not appointing the candidates who found place in the In replacement panel. In this behalf we may make reference to the judgment of this Court in R.S. Mittal vs. Union of India (U0I), (1995) Suppl. 2 SCC 230 , wherein it was held as follows:- “12. It is no doubt correct that a person on the select- panel has no vested right to be appointed to the post for which he has been selected. He has a right to be considered for appointment. But at the same time, the appointing authority cannot ignore the select-panel or decline to make the appointment on its whims. When a person has been selected by the Selection Board and there is a vacancy which can be offered to him, keeping in view his merit position, then, ordinarily, there is no justification to ignore him for appointment. There has to be a justifiable reason to decline to appoint a person who is on the select-panel. In the present case, there has been a mere inaction on the part of the Government. No reason whatsoever, not to talk of a justifiable reason, was given as to why the appointments were not offered to the candidates expeditiously and in accordance with law. The appointment should have been offered to Mr. Murgod within a reasonable time of availability of the vacancy and thereafter to the next candidate. The Central Government's approach in this case was wholly unjustified.” 49. The appointment should have been offered to Mr. Murgod within a reasonable time of availability of the vacancy and thereafter to the next candidate. The Central Government's approach in this case was wholly unjustified.” 49. Further, in Sudesh Kumar Goyal v. The State of Haryana and others passed in Civil Appeal No.10861/2013 decided on 21.09.2023 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as follows :- “18. This takes us to the second argument that the appellant could have been easily adjusted against the vacancy caused due to resignation of one of the selected candidates. The argument per se is bereft of merit inasmuch as all the vacancies notified stood filled up initially. However, if one of the selected candidates joins and then resigns, it gives rise to a fresh vacancy which could not have been filled up without issuing a proper advertisement and following the fresh selection process. The Division Bench has rightly dealt with the above contention in the light of the precedent of the various decisions of this Court and we do not feel that any error has been committed in this context. 19. This apart, as may be noticed that the procedure for selection of superior/higher judicial service officers by direct recruitment from the Bar was initiated by the Punjab and Haryana High Court way back in the year 2007 and now we are in the year 2023 meaning thereby that 16 years have passed by in between. It would be a travesty of justice to keep open the selection process for such a long time and to direct at this stage to make any appointment on the basis of a selection process initiated so far back. For this additional reason also, we do not deem it proper to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of the High Court.” 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 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 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 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 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. - 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 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 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’ 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. 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. 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. 56. Ordered accordingly.