ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J) :
In the present Original Application, the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:
"(i) To quash and set aside the impugned orders dated 20.11.2025 and 09.01.2026 passed by the respondents.
(ii) To direct the respondents promote the applicant from 20.11.2025 / 09.01.2026 where junior of the applciant promoted as Assistant Signal & Telecommunication officer to be reverted.
(iii) any other relief, which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit, just and proper in the circumstances of the case, may also be passed.
(iv) cost of the present case may be awarded in favour of the applicant and against the respondents."
2. Highlighting the facts of the case, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the present Original Application has been filed challenging the arbitrary and illegal action of the respondents in denying promotion to the applicant to the post of Assistant Signal & Telecommunication Engineer (ASTE) under the 70% selection quota despite his due empanelment at Serial No. 28 in the select panel prepared after CBT and viva voce, wherein only one ST vacancy was available and the applicant was fully eligible for promotion.
2.1. Learned counsel further submitted that while 29 candidates were placed in the main panel and 4 in the extended panel, the respondents, in violation of settled rules and the Railway Board guidelines, have wrongly promoted juniors, including Sh. Harshit Kumar Chaturvedi and Sh. Rupendra Srivastava from the extended panel, thereby bypassing the applicant despite his higher seniority.
3
2.2. Learned counsel contended that the respondents have misinterpreted the interim order of this Tribunal dated 20.11.2025 in M.A. No. 4127/2025 in O.A. No. 2959/2025, which only directed that one vacancy be kept vacant pending adjudication, but did not permit alteration of the panel position or grant of promotion to juniors over seniors.
2.3. Learned counsel argued that subsequent vacancies arising due to retirements were also unlawfully filled from the extended panel instead of considering the applicant, thereby resulting in manipulation of roster and violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
3. Opposing the grant of relief, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the present Original Application is misconceived, premature and devoid of merit as the promotion process for the post of ASTE (Group-
B) has been undertaken strictly in accordance with the duly finalized panel and applicable rules, and further in compliance with the specific interim directions of this Tribunal dated 20.11.2025 in O.A. No. 2959/2025, whereby one vacancy was consciously kept reserved to safeguard the interest of the applicant therein.
3.1. Learned counsel further submitted that the respondents have acted bona fide and transparently by operating the extended panel strictly on the basis of inter se seniority and future vacancy arising due to superannuation, wherein all candidates promoted from the extended panel are admittedly senior to the applicant as per the seniority list dated 05.08.2025, and hence no junior has been promoted overlooking the applicant.
4
3.2. Learned counsel argued that the applicant's claim is founded on a misreading of the Tribunal's order as well as a settled legal position that no indefeasible right to promotion accrues merely by empanelment when the operation of panel is subject to judicial proceedings and reserved vacancies, and therefore the applicant's promotion has rightly been kept in abeyance pending final adjudication of O.A. No. 2959/2025.
4. In rejoinder to the arguments put forth by the learned counsel for the respondents, learned counsel for the applicant reiterated that the respondents have wrongly justified the denial of promotion by misinterpreting the interim order dated 20.11.2025 passed in O.A. No. 2959/2025, whereas the said order only directed keeping one vacancy vacant and did not permit re- casting of the panel, shifting of reserved vacancies, or displacement of a duly empanelled ST candidate like the Applicant. It was further submitted that the Applicant was validly empanelled against an available ST vacancy, and once a panel is finalized, it attains finality in law and cannot be altered arbitrarily, as held in Union of India v. K.V. Jankiraman and R.K. Sabharwal v. State of Punjab, which clearly provide that promotion cannot be denied when vacancy exists and reservation is vacancy-based and cannot be manipulated. The Respondents' action of shifting the applicant's ST vacancy and adjusting UR candidates from the extended panel is illegal and contrary to Articles 14, 16 and 16(4) of the Constitution as well as settled law in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India. It was also submitted that reliance on seniority and extended panel is misplaced since the applicant had already qualified the selection process and stood at merit position No. 28, whereas juniors were improperly accommodated. Learned counsel
5
further argued that the Tribunal's order did not authorize modification of the panel and must be implemented strictly as held in State of Punjab v. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar.
5. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the pleadings available on record.
6. ANALYSIS :
6.1 The applicant's chief grievance arises from the contested circular dated 11.8.2025. Even though the applicant's name appears on the provisional panel, his actual promotional prospects have been undermined by clause 4, which reads as under:
"4. The promotion orders of the above empanelled candidates will not be issued in compliance orders dated 06.08.2025 in O.A. No. 2959/2025 filed by Sh. Sandeep, SSE/Signal/Delhi before the Hon'ble CAT (PB), Delhi till the said orders are set aside/recalled/modified suitably and leave of the Hon'ble Court is granted for the same."
6.2 The applicant, in MA No. 1193 of 2026, further contended that adjustments made in favour of candidates from the UR category placed on the extended panel have adversely affected the availability of posts under the SC/ST quota, as reflected in the vacancy roster.
6.3 To counter the aforesaid argument of the learned counsel for the applicant, the respondents have contended that in compliance with the Tribunal's order dated 20.11.2025, the matter was duly examined and it was found that if Shri Sandeep (UR, non-PwBD) succeeds in O.A. No. 2959/2025, he would be considered against a UR vacancy, against which Shri Dal Chand Meena would be adjusted and subsequently considered against the ST vacancy of the applicant, and if he does not succeed, the reserved UR vacancy would be released and the panel dated 11.08.2025
6
would be operated accordingly. It was further submitted that, in compliance of the said order, one DR (non-PwBD) vacancy has been kept reserved for Shri Sandeep, and Shri Dal Chand Meena has been adjusted against the ST vacancy provisionally held by the applicant till final adjudication of O.A. No. 2959/2025. It was also submitted that four employees placed on the extended panel are admittedly senior to the applicant as per the seniority list dated 05.08.2025, and their promotions have been made strictly on the basis of superannuation-based vacancies arising in UR quota, and therefore no illegality has been committed and the applicant's promotion rightly remains deferred till final decision in O.A. No. 2959/2025.
6.4. In M.R. Balaji v. State of Mysore (1963) supp. 1 S. C. R. 439, the Apex Court observed as under:
"Reservation should and must be adopted to advance the prospects of weaker sections of society, but while doing so, care should be taken not to exclude admission to higher educational centres of deserving and qualified candidates of other communities. Reservations under Arts. 15
(4) and 16(4) must be within reasonable limits. The interests of weaker sections of society, which are a first charge on the States and the Centre, have to be adjusted with the interests of the community as a whole. Speaking generallyand in a broad way, a special provision should be less than50%. The actual percentage must depend upon the relevant prevailing circumstances in each case.
The object of Art. 15 (4) is to advance the interests of the society as a whole by looking after the interests of the weaker elements in society. If a provision under Art. 15(4) ignores the interests of society, that is clearly outside the scope ofArt. 15 (4). it is extremely unreasonable to assume that in enacting Art. 15 (4), Parliament intended to provide that where the advancement of the backward classes or the Scheduled Castes and Tribes were concerned, the fundamental right.% of the citizens constituting the rest of the society were to be completely and absolutely ignored.
Considerations of national interest and the interests of the community and the society as a whole have already to be kept in mind. Article 15 was amended and Art. 15 (4) was added in view of the judgment of this Court in the State of Madras v. Smt.Champakam Dorairajan and The State of Madras v. C. R.Srinivasan [1951] S. C. R. 525. Article 15 (4) is a provisoor an exception to Arts. 15 (1) and 29 (2)."
7
6.5. In Heggade Janardhan Subbaryev Vs. The State of Mysore and Anr. (And connected petition), 1963 SCR Supl. (1) 475, the Apex Court clarified that :
"We think that in order to avoid any doubt in the matter it is necessary to make it clear that our judgment in that case ( M.R. Balaji v. State of Mysore( supra) does not affect the validity of the said reservation which is distinct and separate from, and independent of, the other reservation which was challenged. The said reservation continues to be operative, and the fact that the impugned orders have been quashed does not alter that position. The said orders have been quashed solely by reference to the additional reservation made by the impugned orders in regard to the socially and educationally Backward Classes, and so, respondent No. 1 would be justified in giving effect to the reservation made in respect of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes."
6.6 In Civil Appeal No. 629 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 30621 of 2011) Jarnail Singh & Ors. Versus Lachhmi Narain Gupta. decided on 22.01.2022, the Apex Court held as under:
"Taking into account the data pertaining to a 'group', which would be an amalgamation of certain cadres in a service, would not give the correct picture of the inadequacy of representation of SCs and STs in the cadre in relation to which reservation in promotions is sought to be made. Rosters are prepared cadre-wise and not group-wise. Sampling method which was adopted by the Ratna Prabha Committee might be a statistical formula appropriate for collection of data. However, for the purpose of collection of quantifiable data to assess representation of SCs and STs for the purpose of providing reservation in promotions, cadre, which is a part of a 'group', is the unit and the data has to be collected with respect to each cadre."
6.7 In W.P.(C) 2604/2025 & CM APPL. 12392/2025, CM APPL. 12393/2025, Northern Railways and Others Vs. Amzad, decided on 28.10.2025, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi observed that if the number of SC candidates, who by their own merit get selected to open competition vacancies, equals or even exceeds the percentage of posts reserved for SC candidates, it cannot be said that the reservation quota for SCs has been filled. The entire reservation quota will remain intact and available in addition to those selected under the open competition category. (See: Indra
8
Sawhney, R.K. Sabharwal v. State of Punjab, Union of India v. Virpal Singh Chauhan and Ritesh R. Sah v. Dr. Y.L. Yamul.)
6.8 The principle of law discernible from all the aforesaid decisions of this Court is that the roster system is only for the purpose of ensuring that the quantum of reservation is reflected in the recruitment process, and the same ought not to be disturbed once duly implemented.
6.9 The contested directive dated 11.08.2025, arising out of the ongoing proceedings in O.A. No. 2959 of 2025 titled "Sandeep Kumar", cannot be treated as the sole or exclusive basis for operating the extended panel. The interim orders have nowhere explicitly directed that the provisional arrangement in Sandeep Kumar should result in disturbance of the roster or vacancy distribution meant for SC/ST candidates. Further, the stand taken by the respondents is contrary to the constitutional mandate as well as the legal principles laid down in Heggade Janardhan Subbarye (supra) and other judgments cited above. This is particularly so as Sandeep Kumar is an Unreserved (UR) category candidate, whose claim has to be examined strictly within his own category and cannot be extended in a manner that adversely affects the rights of the applicant. Importantly, the interim order cannot be construed as intending to impede the proper implementation of reservation benefits under the roster system for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
7. CONCLUSION :
7.1. Considering the foregoing, the impugned stipulation contained in paragraph 4 of the Office Order dated 11.08.2025 issued by the respondents
9
is hereby declared void and is accordingly set aside. This is for the reason that the vacancy roster cannot be altered so as to disturb the prescribed reservation quota, which is required to be strictly maintained in accordance with the SC/ST roster. Consequently, the Original Application stands disposed of on the aforesaid terms.
7.2. Pending M.A.(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. No costs. (Dr. Anand S Khati) (Manish Garg)
Member (A) Member (J)
/as/