Union Of India vs Alok Kumar

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO………..………………OF 2025 (ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 17844 OF 2023)

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. …APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

ALOK KUMAR …RESPONDENT(S)

JUDGMENT

VIJAY BISHNOI, J.

Leave granted.

2. This appeal arises from the judgment and order dated

Signature Not Verified 06.02.2023 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna Digitally signed by Gulshan Kumar Arora Date: 2025.09.09

in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 12755 of 2021 (“impugned 17:42:47 IST Reason: 1 judgment”) by which the High Court allowed the Writ Petition

filed by the Respondent herein.

FACTUAL MATRIX

3. The Railway Recruitment Board (“RRB”) established in

various parts of India is the authority conducting recruitment

for various Group ‘C’ non-gazetted posts of technical and non-

technical categories in the Railways including the post of a

Senior Section Engineer (“SSE”). The recruitment of the

Group ‘C’ non-gazetted posts is governed by the Master

Circular No.29 dated 28.06.1991 (“Master Circular”). The

relevant provisions of the Master Circular are reproduced

hereunder:

“2. The initial period of training, wherever prescribed for non- gazetted direct recruits in various categories of Group ‘C’ posts, is an important pre-requisite to be successfully completed, before a trainee is absorbed in the post for which he has been recruited. It is, therefore, not desirable to curtail the initial period of training. […] xxx

3. The qualifying examination at the end of initial training of directly recruited non-gazetted staff through the Railway Service Commissions (now Railway Recruitment Board) must necessarily be a written test.

3.1. The candidates should be warned, at the time of their recruitment that their retention in service will be dependent on their successfully completing the training and passing the

2 requisite test” [Emphasis Supplied]

Clause 5 of the Master Circular says that the duration of

training period and the syllabus for the various categories of

Group ‘C’ staff are provided in Chapter I, Section B of the

Indian Railway Establishment Manual, 1989 (“Railway

Manual”). In the said Railway Manual, the duration of

training period has been mentioned for each category of

Group ‘C’ posts and for the post of SSE, the duration of

training is provided as one year, i.e. 52 weeks. Further, Para

103 of Chapter I, Section B of the Railway Manual provides

definitions of, inter alia, an “apprentice” or a “trainee” as

well as the term “direct recruitment” which read as under:

“(iv) An “apprentice” or a “trainee” means a person undergoing training with a view to employment in railway service, who draws pay, leave salary, subsistence allowance or stipend during such training but is not employed in or against a substantive vacancy in the cadre of a branch of deptt. On satisfactory completion of his training he is eligible for appointment of probation in a substantive vacancy but no guarantee of such appointment is given.

(v) “Direct recruitment” means the recruitment to the Group ‘C’ service of any person not already in the service of the railways or any person in railway service who may be permitted to apply for appointment subject to possession of requisite qualifications along with outsiders according to the procedure laid down for recruitment.”

3 In the Railway Manual, it has also been specified that

the training period for any specific post is to be decided by

Zonal Railways and pursuant to that, the Ministry of Railways

vide RBE No.11/2010 dated 15.01.2010 published the

Revised Training Module.

4. The Centralized Employment Notice No.02/2014 dated

20.09.2014 (“Employment Notice”) was issued by the RRB,

Muzaffarpur inviting applications from eligible Indian

Nationals for, inter alia, the post of SSE, whereby the suitable

candidates were to be recruited by way of a written

examination conducted by the RRB. In the said

advertisement, it was specifically mentioned that the selected

candidates will have to undergo training wherever prescribed

for the posts. The said condition is reproduced hereunder:

“1.10. Selected candidates will have to undergo training wherever training is prescribed for the post.”

5. Pursuant to the aforesaid Employment Notice, the Respondent

appeared in the written examination along with other

4 candidates and on being successful, he was offered

provisional appointment vide letter dated 14.09.2016 in

Group ‘C’ category for the post of Apprentice/Trainee SSE

(Electrical/Drawing) against the direct recruitment quota and

the Respondent was allotted to the Construction Organization

in the East Central Railway, Mahendrughat, Patna. The said

provisional appointment letter issued to the Respondent

clarified that he would be eligible for retention in service

subject to successful completion of training and if his

performance in the field of training during the probation

period was found to be unsatisfactory, his services were liable

to be terminated. The said condition specified in the

provisional appointment letter issued to the Respondent is

reproduced hereunder:

“ii. You will be on probation for a period of 02 (two) years. If your performance in the field of training during probation period is found unsatisfactory, your service is liable to be terminated.” [Emphasis Supplied]

6. It is not in dispute that the Respondent has completed 46

weeks of training out of the 52-week training prescribed for

SSEs. On 06.11.2017, the Respondent, along with two other

5 trainees, who were deputed to the Construction Organization,

was sent to the Zonal Rail Training Institute, Muzaffarpur

(“ZRTI”) for a three-week training in General and Subsidiary

Rules (“G&SR”) from 07.11.2017 to 27.11.2017. After the

completion of the said training, an examination was

conducted and as per the result of the same , which was

published on 26.12.2017, the Respondent had failed to clear

the said examination. It is pertinent to note that the other two

trainees, who were sent for training along with the

Respondent, had cleared the examination with 31 other

trainees. As per the various Circulars issued by the

Appellants from time to time, any trainees belonging to

General and OBC categories, who fail to clear such

examination in the first chance, can be given a second chance

subject to non-payment of stipend. The Respondent, being an

OBC category trainee, requested the Chief Administrative

Officer (Construction), East Central Railway, Mahendrughat,

Patna, to allow him to undertake a second attempt to clear

the G&SR training without payment of stipend. The

authority concerned allowed the Respondent to undergo a

6 second round of training from 06.03.2018 to 26.03.2018. It is

evident from the result published on 26.04.2018 that the

Respondent yet again failed to clear the examination held at

the end of the G&SR training course.

7. Consequently, his services were terminated vide Office Order

No. NG/06/2019 dated 04.01.2019 issued by the Senior

Personnel Officer (Construction), East Central Railway,

Mahendrughat, Patna. Further, vide letter dated 26.02.2019,

the Respondent was also directed to refund the stipend

amount of Rs.1,53,354/-, which was disbursed to him for the

second training attempt due to administrative inadvertence,

even when, while allowing the second attempt to the

Respondent to clear the G&SR training, it was specified that

he would not be able to draw any stipend.

8. Being aggrieved with the termination order dated 04.01.2019

and the order for recovery of stipend dated 26.02.2019, the

Respondent approached the Central Administrative Tribunal,

Patna Bench (“CAT, Patna”) by way of an Original

Application No. 50/479/2019 (“OA”) mainly on the ground

7 that four other apprentices/trainees namely, Rohit Raj,

Narendra Meena, Navneet Kumar and Nawal Kishore Jaiswal,

who were selected along with him, had been granted

permanent posting after completion of only 46 weeks of

training, without undergoing G&SR training at ZRTI, unlike

the Respondent. The CAT, Patna vide order dated 30.07.2019

dismissed the said OA and upheld the order of termination of

the Respondent dated 04.01.2019 with an observation that

the Appellants/Department may sympathetically consider any

request made by the Respondent herein for waiver of

repayment of stipend already paid to him while undergoing

training for the G&SR course for the second time.

8.1 The CAT, Patna rejected the Respondent’s allegations of

discrimination amongst similarly placed persons, observing

that two other trainees, apart from the Respondent, who had

been allotted to the Construction Organization, were also sent

for training at ZRTI. Accordingly, it could not be accepted that

the Respondent alone was chosen for a special punitive

training.

8 8.2 Taking note of the fact that all the candidates except one

passed the requisite exam in the first attempt and in the

second attempt, all the candidates except two cleared the

exam, the CAT, Patna concluded that the training/test was

not particularly taxing and that by no stretch of imagination,

could it be inferred that the Respondent was sent for this

training with any prior intention to make him fail.

8.3 Further, the Tribunal observed that the Respondent had tried

to mislead it by repeatedly mentioning the completion of

“Field Training” as a mandatory requirement for

appointment, while the provisional appointment letter

referred to the Respondent’s performance in the “Field of

Training” during the probation period.

9. The Respondent filed CWJC No.19255 of 2019 before the High

Court, challenging Order dated 30.07.2019. However, the said

case was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated

17.09.2019 with liberty to make a representation before the

Railway Board as requested by the Counsel for the

Respondent.

9

10. Thereafter, the Respondent moved Review Application No.

50/51/2019 before the CAT, Patna, seeking recalling of the

Order dated 30.07.2019. This application also came to be

dismissed vide order dated 25.10.2019 on the ground of there

being no error apparent on the face of the record or mistake

of fact in the decision. Further, the Miscellaneous Application

No. 50/422/2019 filed by the Respondent was also rejected

on similar grounds vide order dated 30.01.2020.

11. Aggrieved by the foregoing, the Respondent filed CWJC No.

12755 of 2021 before the High Court assailing orders dated

30.07.2019, 25.10.2019 and 30.01.2020 passed by the CAT,

Patna. The High Court framed the following issue:

“2. Core issue is that whether the petitioner is required to pass any prescribed departmental examination for the post of Senior Section Engineer or not?”

12. The Appellants herein were directed by the High Court on

23.01.2023 to furnish a personal affidavit as regards the

existence of any mandate for such examination.

Consequently, the Appellants filed a personal affidavit dated

10 02.02.2023, wherein they relied on the Master Circular. Upon

consideration of the same, the High Court vide impugned

judgment came to the conclusion that the Appellants had not

prescribed any departmental examination for the purpose of

conferring permanent status against the post of SSE. As a

result, the Writ Petition was allowed and termination orders

dated 04.01.2019 and 26.02.2019 were set aside. The OA filed

by the Respondent stood allowed with the further direction to

the Appellants to extend all service and monetary benefits

which were due to the Respondent within a period of four

months from the date of receipt of this order.

SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS

13. Assailing the impugned judgment, Ms. Poornima Singh,

learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants, has argued

that the recruitment of the Group ‘C’ non-gazetted posts is

governed by the Master Circular and in Clause 2 of the said

Circular, it is clearly specified that the initial period of

training, wherever prescribed for the various categories of

Group ‘C’ posts, is an important prerequisite to be

successfully fulfilled before absorption of a trainee in the post

11 for which he/she has been recruited. Further, Clause 3

specifies that the qualifying examination at the end of the

initial training of the directly recruited non-gazetted staff

must necessarily be a written test. Clause 3.1 says that the

candidates should be warned at the time of their recruitment

that their retention in service will be dependent upon them

successfully completing the training and passing the requisite

test.

It was further submitted that the Railways vide RBE No.

11/2010 dated 15.01.2010 had published the Revised

Training Module for the 52-week training programme. The

said 52-week training encompassed 8 different modules, and

the candidates had to go for each and every module for a

specific period/weeks. In the event that a candidate failed to

clear the training in any module in the first attempt, he/she

could be provided a second attempt without stipend if the

candidate belongs to General and OBC categories. In cases of

candidates belonging to SC/ST categories, a second attempt

can be provided with stipend and such candidates are also

entitled to a third chance to clear the training without

12 stipend. It was further submitted by the learned Counsel that

in the Employment Notice as well, it had been clarified that

the selected candidates will have to undergo training wherever

training has been prescribed for the posts and in the

provisional appointment letter issued to the Respondent,

again, it was clarified that during the probation period of two

years, if his performance in the field of training was found

unsatisfactory, his services were liable to be terminated.

13.1 Ms. Singh has argued that from a combined reading of the

provisions of the Master Circular, the Employment Notice and

the provisional appointment letter, it is apparent that after

completion of training, every selected candidate is required to

undertake an examination to ascertain whether he/she has

successfully completed the training or not. The learned Counsel

has contended that it is not in dispute that the Respondent had

failed to clear the G&SR training despite being provided two

chances, and therefore, there was no illegality in terminating

his services as per the provisions of the Master Circular

governing the field. It has further been argued that in the

impugned judgment, the High Court has failed to appreciate

13 the said position and erred in allowing the Writ Petition filed by

the Respondent.

14. The learned Counsel for the Appellants has further argued that

the learned Single Judge has erred in observing that the

Appellants have not prescribed any “departmental examination”

for the purpose of giving permanent status against the post of

SSE. It was argued that as a matter of fact, no such

“departmental examinations” are conducted for the trainees

and only the “training examinations” are being conducted and

the same is evident from the results which have been published

after conducting such “training examination”, wherein the

Respondent appeared twice but failed. It was argued that the

said results were placed on record before the Writ Court in the

counter-affidavit to the Writ Petition, but the learned Single

Judge had failed to take note of the same and recorded an

erroneous finding that the Appellants had not prescribed any

“departmental examination” for the purpose of giving

permanent status against the post of SSE. The learned Counsel

has also submitted that it is a well-known fact that the

“departmental examinations” are only held in cases of

14 promotion and not in the cases of direct

recruitment/appointment.

15. The learned Counsel for the Appellants has further submitted

that there is no illegality in the action of the Appellants in

issuing the recovery notice for the stipend amount of

Rs.1,53,354/- because while giving a second chance to the

Respondent to clear the G&SR training, it was clarified that the

Respondent will not be entitled to any stipend but the same

was paid to him during the second training due to

administrative inadvertence.

15.1 The learned Counsel for the Appellants has finally contended

that the CAT, Patna, after examining each and every aspect of

the matter, had rightly dismissed the OA filed on behalf of the

Respondent, and the High Court had illegally interfered with

the order of the CAT, Patna. It was, therefore, prayed that the

impugned judgment be set aside and the Writ Petition filed by

the Respondent before the High Court may kindly be

dismissed.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

15

16. Per contra, Mr. Amit Sharma, the learned Counsel appearing

for the Respondent, has submitted that the High Court had

not committed any illegality in passing the impugned

judgment in the facts and circumstances of this case.

The learned Counsel has contended that the Appellants

illegally terminated the services of the Respondent, despite

him having successfully completed 46 weeks of training. It was

argued that although he had failed to clear the G&SR training,

but the fact remained that four other candidates, who were

selected with the Respondent, were never sent to undergo the

G&SR training and were directly appointed only after

completion of 46 weeks of training. It was further argued that

the termination order dated 04.01.2019 was highly

discriminatory, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of

the Constitution and had rightly been set aside by the High

Court.

17. The learned Counsel has further submitted that the

termination order dated 04.01.2019 was passed in

contravention of the terms and conditions of the Revised

16 Training Module dated 15.01.2010, wherein it was nowhere

mentioned that the initial training was to be followed by any

“departmental examination” and that any candidate who

failed to clear such examination would be rendered ineligible

for retention in service. Mr. Sharma has vehemently

contended that the Respondent wrongly placed reliance on

the Master Circular, which was applicable only to those non-

gazetted direct recruits in various categories of Group ‘C’

posts, for whom no specific training module existed. It was

therefore contended that there was no merit in the challenge

of the Appellants to the impugned judgment passed by the

High Court and hence, no grounds for interference have been

made out.

ANALYSIS

18. Heard the learned Counsels for both the parties. The

undisputed facts culled out from the available material on

record are:

18.1 The Master Circular governing the recruitment to non-

gazetted Group ‘C’ posts in the Railways clearly provides that

17 completion of the initial period of training for the non-

gazetted direct recruits in various categories of Group ‘C’

posts is an important prerequisite for the absorption of a

trainee in the post for which he/she has been recruited. It

further provides that at the end of the initial training of a

directly recruited non-gazetted trainee, there must be a

written test and the recruited candidates should be warned

that their retention will be dependent on them successfully

completing the training and passing the requisite test.

18.2 The instruction no. 1.10 of the Employment Notice, under

which the Respondent had applied, clearly provided that the

selected candidates will have to undergo training wherever it

had been prescribed for the concerned post.

18.3 Further, even in the provisional appointment letter issued to

the Respondent, it was specifically stipulated that if his

performance in the field of training during probation was

found unsatisfactory, his services were liable to be terminated. 18.4 The Respondent had completed 46 weeks of training and

thereafter, he was sent to undergo the G&SR training of three

weeks, initially from 07.11.2017 to 27.11.2017. After

18 completion of the said training, an examination was

conducted, however, he failed to clear the said examination.

18.5 On his request, the Respondent was again sent for the G&SR

training from 06.03.2018 to 26.03.2018 with a condition that

he will not get any stipend for undertaking the G&SR training

for the second time. After completion of the said training, the

Respondent appeared in the examination but again failed to

clear the said examination.

18.6 The Respondent was not the only one sent for the G&SR

training, rather several other candidates were also sent for the

said training both when the first time and the second time the

Respondent appeared for the G&SR training. All candidates

except the Respondent passed the examination when the

Respondent appeared for the first time in the said G&SR

training. When the Respondent appeared in the examination

after availing the second chance to undergo the G&SR

training, as many as 34 trainees appeared along with the

Respondent and out of which, 31 cleared the examination

except the Respondent and two other trainees.

19 18.7 When the Respondent failed to clear G&SR training in two

attempts, the Appellants terminated his service vide order

dated 04.01.2019 and directed him vide order dated

26.02.2019 to refund the stipend amount of Rs.1,53,354/-,

which was disbursed to the Respondent while undergoing the

G&SR training for the second time.

19. If we go through the above facts, it is clear that the condition

of appearing in the written training test for every candidate

provisionally appointed as an SSE after clearing the

recruitment examination conducted by the RRB is provided in

the procedure governing the recruitment of directly recruited

non-gazetted Group ‘C’ posts. The learned Counsel for the

Respondent has failed to point out any other rule, circular or

provision of law which governs the subject of recruitment of

persons to non-gazetted Group ‘C’ posts. When the procedure

for recruitment of SSEs issued through the Master Circular

specifically provides for a written test after completion of the

initial training period, the High Court has erred in recording

a finding that no departmental examination is prescribed for

the purpose of conferring permanent status against the post

20 of SSE. The learned Counsel for the Appellants has rightly

pointed out that departmental examinations are conducted

only for the purpose of promotions and not for the purpose of

recruitment/appointment.

20. We do not find any merit in the submission of the learned

Counsel for the Respondent that the Master Circular is not

applicable in the case of recruitment to the post of an SSE.

The reliance of the learned Counsel for the Respondent on

RBE No. 11/2010 dated 15.01.2010, whereby the Revised

Training Module for the 52-week training programme was

published, is also misplaced. As observed earlier, in the

Railway Manual, it has been specifically provided that the

training period for any specific post is to be decided by the

Zonal Railways and pursuant to the said provision, this

Revised Training Module dated 15.01.2010 was issued. In any

manner, this Revised Training Module cannot supersede the

Master Circular, wherein it was specifically provided that

every candidate has to pass the written test after completion

of their initial training. Otherwise also, it is difficult to

comprehend how, in the absence of any test at the end of the

21 initial training period, it can be possible to ascertain whether

a candidate has acquired sufficient training or not.

21. The provisional appointment of the Respondent as a Trainee

SSE was, in fact, only a recruitment and his permanent

appointment in service on the post of an SSE was subject to

the successful completion of his training. A three-Judge

Bench of this Court in Prafulla Kumar Swain v. Prakash

Chandra Misra, reported in (1993) Supp (3) SCC 181, has

defined the meaning of the words “recruitment” and

“appointment” as under:

“29. At this stage, we will proceed to decide as to the meaning and effect of the words “recruitment” and “appointment”. The term “recruitment” connotes and clearly signifies enlistment, acceptance, selection or approval for appointment. Certainly, this is not actual appointment or posting in service. In contradistinction the word “appointment” means an actual act of posting a person to a particular office.

30. Recruitment is just an initial process. That may lead to eventual appointment in the service. But, that cannot tantamount to an appointment. […]” [Emphasis Supplied]

The judgment in Prafulla Kumar Swain (supra) has

also been followed by this Court in Ashok Ram Parhad v.

State of Maharashtra, reported in (2023) 18 SCC 768.

22

22. The other contention of the learned Counsel for the

Respondent that the four trainees namely, Rohit Raj,

Narendra Meena, Navneet Kumar and Nawal Kishore Jaiswal,

were permanently appointed only after 46 weeks of training

and had not completed the 52-week training period is also

incorrect. In the counter affidavit to this SLP, the Respondent

has stated that he sought an information from the Appellants

under the RTI in respect of three trainee SSEs, namely Rohit

Raj, Navneet Kumar and Narendra Meena, and he got the

information that those trainees were not sent for the training

at ZRTI, despite the fact that those three trainees had only

completed 46 weeks of training and not the entire 52-week

training period. The Respondent has further stated in the

counter affidavit that the Respondent was forced to undergo

the G&SR training, however, the said three trainees were not.

However, from the information supplied by the Appellants in

response to the RTI filed by the Respondent, it is more than

clear that all the three trainees, regarding whom the

Respondent had sought information through RTI, had

23 completed the 52-week training period before being

permanently appointed to the post of SSE.

23. In light of the above discussion, we are of the firm view that

when the Respondent had failed to clear the G&SR training

twice and as such, had failed to successfully complete the 52-

week initial training programme, the Appellants have not

committed any illegality in terminating the services of the

Respondent, pursuant to the procedure prescribed for the

purpose of permanent appointment of SSEs. Resultantly, the

impugned judgment passed by the High Court is set aside

and the Writ Petition filed by the Respondent is dismissed.

24. It is also to be noted that although while sending the

Respondent for the second time to clear the G&SR training, it

was clarified that he would not be entitled to any stipend, yet

as per the Appellants, the same was paid to the Respondent

due to administrative inadvertence. Be that as it may be, it is

not the case of the Appellants that the stipend amount was

paid to the Respondent due to misrepresentation or fraud,

and therefore, we are of the view that in the peculiar

circumstances of this case, the said demand raised by the

24 Appellants against the Respondent for the recovery of the

stipend cannot be justified. The same is, therefore, rejected.

25. With these observations, the present appeal is disposed of.

26. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

……………………………J. (J.K. MAHESHWARI)

…………………………. J.

(VIJAY BISHNOI)

NEW DELHI, Dated: 09th SEPTEMBER, 2025

25