WP/14652/2026 of G.Israel cornelius Vs union of India - Represented by on 15 September 2026

ORDER

(Krishnaswamy Govindarajan,J.) This Writ Petition is filed challenging the impugned order dated 04.02.2026 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench in O.A.No.310/01679/2024 and direct the respondents to consider the representation dated 10.07.2024 for the post of Chief Law Assistant in the second respondent.

2. The brief facts are as follows:

(i) The writ petitioner, while working as Chief Staff and Welfare Inspector in Level-6, applied pursuant to Notification dated 01.11.2019 No. P(S)608/III/CLA/Selection(Pilot) issued by Southern Railway for filling up vacancies for the post of Chief Law Assistant in Level-7 under the 7th CPC against a 60% Promotional Quota through General Selection.

(ii) The petitioner participated in the selection process and, upon completion of the written examination and viva-voce on 14.03.2022, was empanelled for the post of Chief Law Assistant in Level-7 alongside one other employee on 16.03.2022. Prior to such empanelment, the petitioner was working as Staff & Welfare Inspector in Level-6. As borne out by the records, the applicant assumed charge of the post of Chief Law Assistant on 20.04.2022.

(iii) Subsequently, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 30.05.2022 seeking repatriation to his previous post of Staff & Welfare Inspector due to personal reasons. The competent authority, after due consideration, acceded to the request and repatriated the petitioner to his parent cadre as Staff & Welfare Inspector vide order dated 20.07.2022. Para 18(iii) of Master Circular No. 31 provides that it is for the competent authority to decide whether disciplinary action is warranted or whether the reasons cited by the employee are genuine.

(iv) The petitioner once again made a representation seeking to rejoin as Chief Law Assistant in Level-7 on the ground that a vacancy existed. The said request was rejected vide order dated 20.04.2024. Challenging the same, the petitioner approached the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 310/01679/2024.

(v) . The Central Administrative Tribunal, by order dated 04.02.2026, dismissed the Original Application holding that:

(a) The applicant had already assumed charge and discharged duties of the post of Chief Law Assistant. His subsequent reversion to the parent cadre of Staff & Welfare Inspector, at his own instance, cannot be treated as a case of refusal of promotion, but is to be construed as reversion at his own instance.

(b) As per Para 7.0 of Notification dated 01.11.2019, an employee promoted as Chief Law Assistant cannot claim any right to re-transfer to the parent cadre;

(c) The panel for the post of Chief Law Assistant was issued on 16.03.2022 and remained valid up to 15.03.2024, being two years from the date of approval by the competent authority [as per Para 221 of IREM Vol.I]. Upon expiry of the panel, a fresh selection process for the post of Chief Law Assistant was initiated vide Notification dated 10.07.2024 to fill five vacancies. Therefore, the request of the applicant to rejoin the cadre of Chief Law Assistant in Level-7 after expiry of the panel is impermissible under the applicable rules; and (d) The applicant is presently serving as Chief Staff & Welfare Inspector at ICF in Pay Matrix Level-7 (PMI-7). Therefore, in terms of Railway Board's letter dated 05.04.2021, he is not eligible to appear in the fresh selection for the post of Chief Law Assistant.

3. Challenging the said order of the Tribunal dated 04.02.2026, the present Writ Petition has been filed.

4. We heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the Standing Panel Counsel for the respondents, and perused the materials available on record.

5. Clauses 6.1 and 7.0 of the notification dated 01.11.2019 are crucial to decide the issue. For better appreciation, the said clauses are extracted hereunder: ‘’6.1 - Employees are advised to read the eligibility criteria carefully before applying against this notification. They should be prepared to serve anywhere on the Southern Railway System after selection/empanelment for the post of Chief Law Assistant. They will not be permitted to withdraw their application/candidature after selection/empanelment. 7.0 - The Chief Law Assistant cadre has its own regular channel of promotion. Hence, such of those candidates who are promoted as Chief Law Assistant will have their further avenue of promotion only in that cadre and they cannot seek re-transfer to their parent cadre.’’

6. The petitioner applied solely on the basis of the Notification dated 01.11.2019. Clause 6.1 is very clear that applicants must be prepared to serve anywhere in Southern Railway after selection/empanelment as Chief Law Assistant, and will not be permitted to withdraw their application/candidature after selection/empanelment. In Clause 7.0, it is stated that Chief Law Assistant is a regular channel of promotion and those candidates who are promoted as Chief Law Assistant will have their lien only in that cadre and not in the parent cadre.

7. Taking advantage of the said notification and knowing fully well about the regulations, the petitioner applied for the post of Chief Law Assistant in Level-7 and was promoted. Subsequently, the petitioner requested a repatriation/re-transfer on personal/medical grounds, which was acceded to by the respondents. Now, after resolving the family medical issues, the petitioner is attempting to once again take advantage of the earlier notification for the purpose of promotion, which is legally unsustainable.

8. The petitioner is presently serving as Chief Staff and Welfare Inspector in Pay Matrix Level-7. In terms of the Railway Board guidelines, is not within the zone of consideration for the post of Chief Law Assistant. Para 7.0 of Notification dated 01.11.2019 is very clear that an employee promoted as Chief Law Assistant cannot claim a re-transfer to the parent cadre and then subsequently claim promotion again.

9. The panel for the post of Chief Law Assistant was formed on 16.03.2022 and remained valid for a period of two years (or as specified), expiring prior to the present request. The petitioner's request to rejoin as Chief Law Assistant in Level-7 was made only after the expiry of the panel. On this ground as well, the petitioner's request cannot be acceded to.

10. In view of the above discussion, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the order dated 04.02.2026 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 310/01679/2024. Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs. (S.M.S.,J.) (K.G.R.,J.) 21-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No rli To

1. The General Manager Union of India Integral Coach Factory, Perambur, Chennai.

2. The Principal Chief Personnel Officer Southern Railway, Park Town,Chennai.

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. AND KRISHNASWAMY GOVINDARAJAN, J. rli Pre-delivery order in WP No. 14652 of 2026 21-09-2026