Navin Sinha, C.J.— These three writ applications arise from a common order dated 13-2-2015 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, Circuit sitting at Bilaspur in OA No. 203-00259 of 2014 and analogous applications.
2. Since the facts are similar and the questions of law arising for consideration are common with regard to recruitment in the scale of Rs 5,200-20,200 + Grade Pay of Rs 1800 in Raipur, Bilaspur and Nagpur Division and workshops of South-East Central Railway, Raipur, they have heard together and are being disposed by this common order.
3. The Tribunal held that the Petitioners claiming to be with 20% extra list had no claim to be considered against non-joining vacancies unless and until the procedure prescribed in Railway Board's letter dated 2-7-2008 was followed and process initiated for filling up the same.
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioners submitted that of the 5798 posts advertised (5540 in General category and 258 in physically handicapped category) 624 posts remained unfilled in the General Category. The Respondents had prepared 20% extra candidates list which was supposed to be made operational by appointment from the same in case of non-joining vacancies of selected candidates or such of them disqualified on medical grounds. Even if the Petitioners may have had no indefeasible right to appointment, yet if vacancies remained unfilled, the Respondents could not act arbitrarily by not filling up the unfilled vacancies advertised, except for valid and germane reasons which is not the case presently making their conduct arbitrary. If the circular dated 20-8-2009 was not applicable to the Petitioners who are recruited through the Railway Recruitment Cell and not through the Railway Recruitment Board, yet it provides sufficient guidelines for the manner in which the replacement panel is to be worked. It was next submitted that under the Right to Information Act, on 29-4-2015, the South Western Railway has informed that candidates from these 20% extra candidates list have been considered for appointment against unfilled vacancies of higher merit candidates who may also have been found unfit during medical examination. Likewise, the East Coast Railway under Right to Information Act on 15-9-2014 has acknowledged that four persons from 20% extra candidates list have been appointed and that the recruitment rules were common for Regional Recruitment Cell, Bilaspur also. Article 14 was sought to be invoked on basis of aforesaid to urge discrimination.
5. Learned Counsel for the Respondents submitted that no separate 20% extra candidates list is prepared at the very inception when candidates higher in the merit list are called for selection. If vacancies remained unfilled due to non-joining of selected candidates or disqualification on medical grounds, there is a procedure prescribed in the Railway Board letter dated 2-7-2008 which has to be initiated only after which formation of replacement panel commences.
6. We have considered the submissions on behalf of the parties and are of the considered opinion that the only question arising for our consideration is to the correctness of the order of Tribunal with regard to the interpretation of Railway Boards letter 2-7-2008. We are not required to go into the question with regard to number of unfilled vacancies and issues regarding filling up of the same. Merely because a specified number of vacancies may have been published no mandamus can be issued to fill up the same from beyond the merit list.
7. The only question for our consideration is that if the Petitioners were not in the original list of selected candidates on higher merit and were to be considered against non-joining vacancies or medical disqualification of selected candidates, then the procedure prescribed in the Railway Board's letter 2-7-2008 was required to be followed by preparation of a replacement panel. The Tribunal has arrived at a finding of fact that no process for initiation of the procedure under letter dated 2-7-2008 was ever commenced by the Respondents to fill up non-joining vacancies from any replacement panel. A candidate outside and beyond the merit list, has no vested legal right to such appointment as a matter of right because vacancies may exist. We do not find any reason to differ with the conclusions arrived at by the Tribunal.
8. The submission with regard to Article 14 also does not impress us. There will be a presumption that if appointments have been made from the replacement panel in certain other Zones, the procedure prescribed in Railway Boards letter dated 2-7-2008 had been followed. The material furnished by the Petitioners in respect of the plea of discrimination does not reveal that appointment from the replacement panel were made in deviation from Railway Boards letter dated 2-7-2008. Even otherwise, if any appointment have been made from the replacement panel contrary to the procedure under letter dated 2-7-2008, it cannot create a cause of action to demand perpetuation of the illegality.
9. In our opinion, Article 14 cannot be invoked to seek application of a uniform standard in different Divisions of the Railways only because the Railways is one entity. We therefore find no reason to interfere with the order of Tribunal.
10. The Writ Petitions are dismissed.