Ranjeet Swami & Ors. vs The Union Of India & Ors.

That the applicants were appointed on 31.07.2023 pursuant to the recruitment process undertaken against CEN No. 01/2019 and are presently posted in different divisions and stations of Western Railway.

The General Departmental Competitive Examination (GDCE) is a scheme of the Railway Board intended to provide an avenue to serving regular Railway employees to compete against a prescribed percentage of vacancies falling under the Direct Recruitment Quota in identified categories. The applicants rely upon Master Circular No. 69/2024 dated 07.10.2024, which consolidates the instructions governing the GDCE scheme. According to the applicants, under the GDCE scheme, regular employees possessing the prescribed educational qualifications are eligible to participate, and the scheme provides an avenue for serving employees to compete for posts in identified categories.

It is stated that the Railway Recruitment Cell, Western Railway i.e. Respondent No. 4 herein issued GDCE Notification No. 01/2023 dated 31.07.2023 whereby for selection and appointment to the various posts in Safety Category such as Assistant Loco Pilot, Technician-III, Junior Engineer, Train Manager, applications were invited from serving regular employees of Western Railway who have successfully completed period of probation as on 01.07.2023.

The eligibility criteria, recruitment process, computer based test and other conditions has been stipulated in the said vacancy notification no. GDCE 01/2023 dated 31.07.2023.

It is stated that under the said GDCE Notification dated 31.07.2023 the eligibility was linked to the prescribed cut-off date of 01.07.2023.

Consequently, employees who had joined service after the said date i.e. 01.07.2023 were not permitted to participate in the recruitment process, notwithstanding their otherwise possessing the requisite qualifications.

The applicants contend that since they had joined service after 01.07.2023 were excluded from participating in GDCE Notification No. 01/2023.

Further, it is stated that the Respondent No. 4 had itself subsequently reopened the application portal in respect of GDCE Notification No. 01/2023 by Notice dated 31.10.2023 for certain employees who had joined between 01.07.2021 and 01.07.2023 but they had not earlier applied or registered. The applicants rely upon this action Central Administrative Tribunal^{to contend that modification or reopening of an existing GDCE} notification is administratively feasible. In this regard, it is further stated that the vide Notification RBE No. 12/2026 dated 10.02.2026, the Railway Board had decided to continue with the GDCE scheme and accordingly the said scheme and the time limit for implementation of the said GDCE Scheme was extended for a further period of two years from 31.03.2026 up to 31.03.2028.

Thereafter, the Railway Board's vide RBE No. 28/2026 dated 23.03.2026, issued revised instructions regarding the examination pattern and syllabus for GDCE to the Zonal Railways. It is stated that paragraph 5 of said RBE No. 28/2026 specifically dealt with pending GDCE notifications where the Computer Based Test had not yet been conducted. According to the applicants, as per the instructions contained in para 5 of the RBE No. 28/2026 in respect to the pending GDCE notification, either a fresh notification be issued or an opportunity for submission of fresh applications be provided to other regular employees who have completed their period of probation after the cut-off date 01.07.2023 and in this regard suitably modify fresh notification should have published by the respondents.

It is further stated that undisputedly, no CBT had been conducted in respect to GDCE Notification No. 01/2023 and same is still pending at the time of issuance of RBE No. 28/2026. According to the applicants fresh GDCE notification or modify/reopen the existing notification required to be issued in terms of said RBE No. 28/2026 by the respondent, Respondent No. 4 so as to provide an opportunity to employees who had subsequently become eligible.

The applicants contended that despite the Railway Board instructions, Respondent No. 4 without modifying or reopening the notification proceeded to issue the impugned Notice dated 18.05.2026 directing to conduct CBT under GDCE Notification No. 01/2023. According to the applicants, the impugned Notice has the effect of permanently excluding them and other similarly situated employees who became eligible after 01.07.2023 from consideration for the notified posts.

Therefore, the newly appointed (i.e. after 01.07.2023) Level 01 employees jointly submitted a representation dated 27.05.2026 (Annexure A/3) to the General Manager, Western Railway, with copies to the concerned authorities, requesting that the Notice 18/19.05.2026 for conducting CBT in respect to GDCE 01/2023 be stayed/cancelled and that GDCE Notification No. 01/2023 be suitably modified and reopened in terms of RBE No. 28/2026. The applicants state that a list of 349 affected employees was also enclosed with the representation. However, till date, their representation has not been considered.

Not only that the respondents vide notice dated 21.08.2026 notified the schedule for the CBT for the post of JE i.e. CBT on 11.09.2026 and 12.09.2026.

The applicants also challenge the Railway Board letter being No. 2025/E(RRB)/25/09 dated 28.04.2025 (Annexure A/9) whereby the Railway Board issued instructions/ guidelines in respect to the accountability and undertaking mechanism in cases of litigation causing delay in Railway recruitment. According to the applicants, the said mechanism requires litigants challenging recruitment processes to furnish an undertaking regarding costs, compensation and penalty in the event of dismissal or an adverse decision.

Learned counsel also stated that inadvertently, the applicants of the present OA had approached the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat by way of filing SCA No. 9116/2026 for the same relief as sought for in the present OA. The said SCA was disposed of as withdrawn vide order dated 02.09.2026 by the Hon’ble High Court with a liberty to approach Central Administrative Tribunal for the same prayer.

Accordingly, the applicant has filed the present OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal's Act 1985 seeking relief as prayed for in para 8 and 9 of the OA.

That the applicants have challenged the impugned action principally on the ground that the Railway Recruitment Cell, Western Railway, proceeded to conduct the CBT under GDCE Notification No. 01/2023 in disregard of the subsequent binding instructions contained in RBE No. 28/2026 dated 23.03.2026. More particularly paragraph 5 of RBE No. 28/2026 is mandatory in nature and specifically governs pending GDCE notifications in cases where the CBT had not been conducted.

According to the applicants, the respondents were therefore bound either to issue a fresh notification or provide an opportunity for fresh applications by modifying/reopening the existing notification. In this regard she vehemently argued that the applicants herein were given appointment after 31.07.2023 though they have been recruited in the year 2019, therefore, for no fault on the part of the applicants herein they were not considered eligible and devoid of their legitimate right.

The applicants further contend that Respondent No. 4, being subordinate to the Railway Board, was bound to act in accordance with the instructions issued by the Railway Board and could not proceed contrary to such instructions. The impugned action is therefore alleged to be without authority and legally unsustainable. The applicants contend that proceeding with the CBT without reopening the notification deprives them of an equal opportunity to compete for the notified posts and thereby violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

It is further argued that the applicant are discriminated by the respondents and in this regard she submits that several other Zonal Railways acted upon RBE No. 28/2026 by cancelling, reissuing, modifying or reopening their GDCE notifications, whereas Western Railway allegedly failed to adopt the same course without any rational justification. Such differential treatment, according to the applicants, is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

Learned counsel submits that in view of the language of RBE No. 28/2026, the continuation of the GDCE scheme and the practice allegedly followed by other Zonal Railways, they had a legitimate expectation that they would be afforded an opportunity to participate in the recruitment process.

The applicants also allege violation of principles of natural justice and fair play on account of the respondents' alleged failure to consider and decide their representation dated 27.05.2026.

Learned counsel for the applicant by referring the Notice dated 31.10.2023, submits that the Respondent No. 4 re-opened the online application module for GDCE Notification No. 01/2023 (i) for employees who had completed registration but could not submit the application, and (ii) for employees who had joined between 01.07.2021 and 01.07.2023 but had not applied/registered earlier, expressly recording that no minimum service condition was prescribed for the GDCE Notification of 2023 in terms of RBE No. 112/2023 dated 06.10.2023 (Annexure A/5 refer).

Without prejudice to the principal challenge, the applicants also assail Railway Board Notification No. 2025/E(RRB)/25/09 dated 28.04.2025. It is contended that requiring a litigant to undertake to pay costs, compensation or penalty in the event of an adverse decision operates as a disproportionate restriction upon the right to invoke the statutory remedy under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. The applicants therefore contend that the said accountability/undertaking mechanism, insofar as it is sought to be applied to bona fide proceedings such as the present Original Application, is arbitrary, unreasonable and disproportionate and is liable to be held inapplicable.

It is submitted that the instructions contained in RBE No. 28/2026 create a legitimate expectation for grant of due opportunity to participate in the GDCE and the respondents cannot deprive the applicants for enforcing their right to participate in the GDCE. In support of the said submissions, learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Food Corporation of India Vs. Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries dated 03.11.1992 as well as the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of M/s. K.B. Tea Product Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Commercial Tax Officer, Siliguri & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 2297/2011) dated 12.05.2023 in support of .

In sum, the applicants contend that unless the impugned Notice is stayed and the respondents are directed to comply with RBE No. 28/2026 by modifying/reopening GDCE Notification No. 01/2023, they would suffer irreparable prejudice. According to them, once the CBT is conducted and the select panels are prepared, their exclusion from the recruitment process would become irreversible and any subsequent relief may become ineffective.

The respondents preliminarily objected the maintainability of this OA by this Tribunal on the ground of territorial jurisdiction. In this regard, learned counsel for the respondents by referring the clause XI of the GDCE Notification No. 01/2023 dated 31.07.2023 more particularly note 3 which states that any legal issues arising out of this Employment Notice, the Jurisdiction shall be under Hon’ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Central Administrative Tribunal^{Mumbai only. Therefore, the present OA be dismissed solely on the said} ground.

It is submitted that the applicants were appointed in Western Railway after the prescribed cut-off date of 01.07.2023 and, consequently, they were not eligible to apply under GDCE Notification No. 01/2023. Further, it is stated that as per the Master Circular no. 69/2024 consolidating the existing instructions governing GDCE it also provides that the same should be read alongwith subsequent Railway Board instructions/clarifications. In this regard, learned counsel would also argue that the instructions/guidelines contained in RBE No. 112/2023 dated 06.10.2023 qua no minimum service condition was prescribed, it does not state or stipulate waiving of the cutoff date to be eligible to apply against GDCE notification. It is stated that as per the RBE No. 112/2023, Western Railway issued a one-time Notice dated 31.10.2023 reopening the application portal for the categories specifically covered by the said clarification. It did not create any continuing or perpetual right in favour of employees who joined Railway service after the prescribed cut-off date i.e. 01.07.2023. Learned counsel therefore vehemently argued that the said exercise did not permit employees who had joined after 01.07.2023 to apply against GDCE Notification No. 01/2023.

Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently argued that the RBE No. 28/2026 dated 23.03.2026, has been wrongly interpreted by the applicant. For clarity and brevity said para 5 is reproduced herein below:-

By referring the aforesaid instructions contained in para 5 of RBE No. 28/2026, learned counsel for the respondents would argue that the said guidelines stipulates that in a case pending GDCE if Computer Based Test (CBT) had not been held, the concerned Zonal Railway “may decide to hold GDCE afresh or otherwise depending upon its local circumstances.” According to the learned counsel for the respondents, the deliberate use of the expression “may decide” demonstrates that the Railway Board did not impose a mandatory obligation upon every Zonal Railway to cancel its existing GDCE notification, reopen the application portal or issue a fresh notification. Learned counsel would argue that if the Railway Board had intended to make issuance of a fresh notification compulsory in respect of all pending GDCEs, it would not have used the expressions “may decide” and “depending upon its local circumstances” in paragraph 5 of RBE No. 28/2026. According to the respondents, the language of the circular consciously leaves the decision to the concerned Zonal Railway. In other words, it has been left to the discretion of the concerned Zonal Railway to take appropriate decision in this regard.

The respondents have further emphasized that the expression “shall have to be provided”, appearing in paragraph 5 of RBE No. 28/2026, is specifically confined to pending GDCE for Assistant Loco Pilot (ALP) posts where no CBT had been held, and the same cannot be extended by the applicants herein to make it applicable for all categories of posts merely because the CBT in respect of a particular category had not been concluded. It is therefore submitted that the applicants have incorrectly Central Administrative Tribunal^{attempted to extend the ALP-specific provision to all categories of posts,} which, according to them, is contrary to the plain language and scheme of RBE No. 28/2026.

The allegation that the applicants’ representation dated 27.05.2026 was not considered has also been specifically denied. In this regard, it is submitted that the Railway Recruitment Cell, Western Railway, examined the grievances raised by the applicants and other similarly placed employees and issued replies. In this regard, learned counsel for the respondents placed reliance on the copy of reply sent to the concerned applicant through e-mail dated 04.06.2026 (Annexure R/5 colly) informing them that the CBTs under GDCE Notification Nos. 01/2021 and 01/2023 would be conducted and that GDCE Notification No. 01/2023 would not be reopened for employees appointed after 01.07.2023 as the said date being the cut-off date specified in the notification. It was also informed that fresh GDCE notifications for various categories would be issued in due course.

With regard to reliance placed by the applicants on the decision of other Zonal Railways, namely Central Railway etc., for issuance of fresh GDCE notification, the respondents submit that the decisions of those Zonal Railways were taken in their own administrative and local circumstances and cannot confer any enforceable legal right upon the applicants as against Western Railway. According to the respondents, paragraph 5 of RBE No. 28/2026 itself recognizes that different Zonal Railways may take different decisions depending upon their respective local circumstances. Therefore, merely because some other Zonal Railways may have cancelled their notifications and issued fresh notifications cannot render the decision of Western Railway herein illegal, arbitrary or discriminatory.

Central Administrative Tribunal^{4.7 Further, it is argued that reopening or cancelling GDCE} Notification No. 01/2023 would seriously prejudice the employees who had already applied pursuant to the notification, besides delaying the recruitment process, affecting the legitimate expectations of the existing candidates and causing avoidable litigation. According to the respondents, the interests of the employees who were already eligible under the existing notification also require protection.

It is fairly submitted that GDCE is a recurring recruitment process and is conducted periodically depending upon the availability of vacancies and administrative requirements. Therefore, the applicants are not permanently deprived of an opportunity to participate in GDCE. They would be at liberty to apply in future GDCE notifications, subject to the eligibility conditions prescribed therein.

In sum, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the applicants have failed to establish any violation of their legal or constitutional rights. The challenge to the Notice dated 18.05.2026 is, according to the respondents, without substance, and the applicants are not entitled to seek reopening or modification of GDCE Notification No. 01/2023 merely because they became eligible after its prescribed cut-off date. The respondents have accordingly prayed that the Original Application be dismissed as being devoid of merit, without granting any relief to the applicants.

It is also not in dispute that for one reason or other administrative reason, the respondent Railway could not conduct the CBT in respect to the said vacancy notification no. GDCE 01/2023 dated 31.07.2023 and the GDCE 01/2023 has yet not been finalized.

In the meantime, as noted herein above, during the pendency of the said GDCE 01/2023, the Railway Board vide RBE No. 28/2026 dated 23.03.2026 had issued clarifications/guidelines on examination pattern and syllabus in respect to General Department Competitive Examination (GDCE) for filling up 25 per cent of the Direct Recruitment quota vacancies.

At the same time, while denying the claim of the applicants, the respondents herein in their counter reply along with their preliminary objection about maintainability of this OA on the point of territorial jurisdiction of this Tribunal more particularly in terms of Note 3 mentioned below the Clause XI of the aforesaid GDCE Notification No. 01/2023 dated 31.07.2023 which stipulates that “any legal issues arising out of this Employment Notice, the Jurisdiction shall be under Hon’ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai only.” Since, the applicants herein raised the legal issue about the selection/recruitment process undertaken by the respondents in respect to GDCE 01/2023, such legal issue / dispute are required to be adjudicated in terms of condition stipulated in Note 3 below Clause XI of the GDCE Notification No. 01/2023. Therefore, CAT, Ahmedabad Bench is not proper legal forum to entertain the present OA.

By referring the instructions/clarification stated in the para 5 of the RBE No. 28/2026 learned counsel for the respondents would also argue that the language of the said RBE explicitly states that the concerned Railway Zone may decide to continue existing pending GDCEs but in such cases where CBTs have not been held the Railways may decide to hold GDCEs afresh or otherwise depending on their local circumstances. Therefore, it is clear that the said RBE gives sole discretion to the concerned Railway Zone to hold GDCEs depending on the local circumstances. The applicant has misinterpreted the para 5 of the said RBE No. 28/2026.

It is suffice to state that undisputedly, the CBT has not been held in respect to the GDCE Notification No. 01/2023, therefore, it is up to the concerned Railway to decide to hold GDCEs afresh or otherwise depending on their local circumstances. The Respondents herein decided to continue with the GDCE Notification No. 01/2023 without there being any further modification and as per their local circumstances decided to Central Administrative Tribunal^{conduct CBT and published the schedule in this regard. The Respondents} in the reply stated that GDCE is a recurring recruitment process and is conducted periodically depending upon the availability of vacancies and administrative requirements. Therefore, the applicants are not permanently deprived of an opportunity to participate in GDCE. They would be at liberty to apply in future GDCE notifications, subject to the eligibility conditions prescribed therein.