AADIL vs WESTERN RAILWAY on 5 November 2026

ORDER

Per: Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Kumar, Member (A)

1. The applicant has filed the present OA, under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following reliefs: “8.1 Lord Ships be pleased to admit this petition. And be pleased to issue an order quash and set aside Annexure Order no. 890/60/1/CGA/Forwarding of Application Vol.II Dated 14.08.2025 (Annex/A/1), Order No. E File no. 52712 dated 13.02.2024 (Annex. A/2) and Order no. E/Conf/890/1 (008/22) dated 26.06.2024 (Annex. A/3) 8.2 And be pleased to direct the respondent to Appont/reconsider the applicant appointment as CLA (Chief Law Assistant) on Compassionate grounds w.e.f. the date he was initially appointed as Fitter III and grant him notional seniority from the date with all consequential benefits. 8.3 The Hon’ble Tribunal may be kindly pleased to call for the entire record of the applicant in possession of the respondent for its kind perusal. 8.4 any other relief which the Hon’ble Tribunal deems fit. 8.5 That the Hon’ble Tribunal in the facts and circumstances of the present case may further be pleased to grant the cost of the application to the applicant.

2. Brief facts of the case as stated by the applicant are as under: - 2.1 The father of the applicant, Late Shri Imtiyaz Husen Malek, was serving as Assistant Sub-Inspector in the Railway Protection Force (RPF), Western Railway. He died in harness on 09.08.2021. 2.2 The applicant, being a dependent son, sought appointment on compassionate grounds. The respondents initiated the process of considering his candidature for appointment in Group 'C'. 2.3 Initially, the applicant was considered for the post of Sub- Inspector, RPF. He appeared in the Physical Efficiency Test (PET) held on 24.03.2022 but could not qualify. 2.4 Thereafter, the applicant was considered for appointment in the divisional cadre. He appeared in the common Computer Based Test (CBT) and secured 48 marks out of 100. P ANUKUMA

::3 :: OA No.414/2025

2.5 The applicant was found medically fit in medical category and was considered by the Screening Committee for different Group ‘C’ categories. 2.6 The applicant was initially recommended for the post of Commercial-cum-Ticket Clerk, but the competent authority did not agree with the recommendation. Subsequently, the Screening Committee recommended his candidature for the post of Station Master, Level-6, having regard to his educational qualification, medical classification and availability of vacancies. 2.7 The applicant, however, expressed his preference for the post of Staff and Welfare Inspector (S&WLI), referring to his educational qualification of B.A., LL.B., with specialisation in Labour Laws. His application dated 28.07.2022 was submitted in this regard. 2.8 The respondents contend that no vacancy under the Direct Recruitment Quota was available for the post of Welfare Inspector at the relevant time. The applicant was accordingly advised to undergo the prescribed written examination for the post of Station Master. 2.9 The applicant qualified in the written examination but could not qualify the prescribed Psychological/Aptitude Test, despite being granted two opportunities. 2.10 Subsequently, the applicant appeared before the Screening Committee on 02.01.2024 and was recommended for the post of Technician (Fitter) Grade-III in the Mechanical Department (C&W), Level-2. 2.11 Accordingly, an offer of appointment dated 13.02.2024 (Annexure A/2) was issued to the applicant. The applicant, however, submitted a representation dated 15.02.2024 to the Divisional Railway Manager, Vadodara, seeking appointment as Welfare Inspector on compassionate grounds. 2.12 The respondents, vide communication dated 26.06.2024 (Annexure A/3), rejected his request for appointment as Staff and Welfare Inspector and directed him to join the allotted category P ANUKUMA

::4 :: OA No.414/2025

within 15 days, failing which his candidature was liable to be treated as cancelled. 2.13 The applicant also relied upon the case of Ku. Shanu Singh, who was initially offered appointment as Welder Grade-III on compassionate grounds and was subsequently appointed as Chief Law Assistant in Vadodara Division, vide order dated 10.11.2023, having regard to her higher educational qualifications. 2.14 The applicant submitted a further representation dated 01.06.2024, addressed to the Principal Chief Personnel Officer, Western Railway, Churchgate, Mumbai, and received for dispatch in the office of the Divisional Railway Manager, Vadodara on 02.07.2024, seeking appointment as Chief Law Assistant (Annexure A/12). 2.15 The applicant had earlier approached this Tribunal in O.A. No. 216 of 2025. By order dated 05.05.2025, the Tribunal directed the respondents to consider his representation in accordance with law (Annexure A/13). 2.16 In compliance with the aforesaid order, the General Manager (Establishment), Western Railway, issued the impugned communication dated 14.08.2025 (Annexure A/1), rejecting the applicant’s request on the ground that he had already accepted the offer of appointment and joined as Technician (Fitter) Grade-III and under the extant instructions, change of category was not permissible after acceptance of the offer and medical examination. Hence, the present OA.

3. Submission of learned counsel for the applicant 3.1 Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant possesses the qualification of B.A., LL.B., with specialisation in Labour Laws and his educational qualification was relevant for consideration against suitable legal or welfare-related Group 'C' posts. 3.2 Learned counsel submitted that the respondents failed to properly consider the applicant’s claim under Master Circular No. 16 governing compassionate appointments in the Indian Railways. P ANUKUMA

::5 :: OA No.414/2025

Particular reliance was placed upon paragraph 6 of Master Circular No. 16, which provides for assessment of the suitability of candidates through a Screening Committee consisting of three Senior Scale Officers, one of whom should be a Personnel Officer, and, in sub-paragraph (ii), prescribes the number of chances to be given. The relevant portion of sub-paragraph (ii) reads as under: - “6….

(ii) Number of chances: - Maximum of three chances to the wards and four chances may be given to widow/wife commensurate with their educational qualification to the post and suitability may be adjudged accordingly. Second chance should be given as a rule and uniformly followed. 2nd chance to wards and widow should be given with the approval of competent authority (DRMs/HODs/CWMs as the case may be. However, 3rd chance to ward/widow/wife and 4th chance to widow/wife will require personal approval of the General Manager”. It was submitted that where a candidate possesses the requisite minimum qualifications for Group 'C' posts, his suitability for different categories should be assessed and recorded by the Screening Committee, which should also indicate the categories for which the candidate has not been found suitable. 3.3 Learned counsel further argued that the respondents restricted their consideration to the posts of Sub-Inspector, RPF and Station Master and, upon the applicant’s failure to qualify the tests specific to those categories, allotted him the technical post of Technician (Fitter) Grade-III without properly examining his suitability for other categories. 3.4 It was submitted that failure in the Physical Efficiency Test for the RPF post or in the Psychological/Aptitude Test for the post of Station Master cannot automatically be treated as a finding of unsuitability for a legal or welfare-related post, which involves different eligibility requirements and duties. 3.5 Learned counsel also relied upon Railway Board’s letter RBE No. 26/2021 dated 05.04.2021 concerning eligibility criteria for the post of Chief Law Assistant in Level-7 and submitted that a degree in Law is recognised under the relevant Railway instructions. 3.6 It was further submitted that the case of Ku. Shanu Singh demonstrates that the Railway Administration has, in appropriate P ANUKUMA

::6 :: OA No.414/2025

circumstances, considered compassionate appointment to the post of Chief Law Assistant, having regard to the candidate's qualifications and availability of vacancy. 3.7 Learned counsel placed reliance upon the judgment of the Principal Bench of this Tribunal in O.A. No. 1128 of 2015, decided on 15.11.2017, wherein the Tribunal considered the Railway Board’s circular dated 07.08.2009 concerning change of category in compassionate appointment cases. 3.8 Reliance was also placed upon the order passed by the Jammu Bench of this Tribunal in O.A. No. 61/1001/2021, dated 29.02.2024/24.04.2024, wherein the claim of a qualified dependent for appointment to a higher post was considered in the context of the applicable compassionate appointment rules and the availability of similarly situated candidates. 3.9 It was contended that the applicant had repeatedly requested consideration of his case even before joining the post of Technician (Fitter) Grade-III and his subsequent joining was in the circumstances arising from the respondents’ communication dated 26.06.2024, which required him to join within 15 days, failing which his candidature would be cancelled. 3.10 Learned counsel submitted that the impugned order dated 14.08.2025 does not deal with the applicant’s specific representations, the relevant policy provisions or the exception contained in the Railway Board’s circular dated 07.08.2009. 3.11 On the aforesaid grounds, learned counsel prayed that the impugned orders be quashed and the respondents be directed to reconsider the applicant’s appointment as Chief Law Assistant on compassionate grounds with appropriate consequential benefits.

4. Submission of learned counsel for the respondent 4.1 Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents have filed their reply and submitted that the applicant has no enforceable right to claim appointment to a particular post on compassionate grounds. 4.2 It was submitted that the object of compassionate appointment is to provide immediate financial assistance to the family of a deceased P ANUKUMA

::7 :: OA No.414/2025

employee and not to secure employment to a dependent according to his individual preference or educational status. 4.3 Learned counsel submitted that the applicant was initially considered for the post of Sub-Inspector in the RPF Department but could not qualify the Physical Efficiency Test. 4.4 Thereafter, the applicant was considered for the post of Station Master, Level-6, on the basis of his medical classification A/2 and availability of vacancy. Although he qualified in the written examination, he failed to qualify the Psychological/Aptitude Test even after being granted a second opportunity. 4.5 It was submitted that the applicant was thereafter considered by a duly constituted Screening Committee and recommended for the post of Technician (Fitter) Grade-III, in accordance with his performance in the common CBT and the applicable criteria. 4.6 Learned counsel further submitted that no vacancy under the Direct Recruitment Quota was available for the post of Staff and Welfare Inspector when the applicant initially sought consideration for the said category on 28.07.2022. 4.7 It was argued that the applicant repeatedly changed his preference from Staff and Welfare Inspector to Station Master and thereafter to Chief Law Assistant, resulting in unnecessary administrative inconvenience. 4.8 Learned counsel relied upon Railway Board’s letter dated 07.08.2009, which provides that a change in the category allotted to a compassionate appointment candidate can be considered only before acceptance of the offer of appointment and medical examination. Once the offer is accepted and the candidate undergoes medical examination, a change of category can be made only on account of medical unfitness or by an authority higher than the authority which decided the original allotment. 4.9 It was submitted that the applicant had accepted the offer of appointment and joined as Technician (Fitter) Grade-III on 05.09.2024. Therefore, his subsequent request for appointment to a higher post was not permissible. P ANUKUMA

::8 :: OA No.414/2025

4.10 Learned counsel also relied upon Railway Board’s letter dated 02.11.1989, RBE No. 274/1989, which provides that the type of job offered to a candidate found suitable for compassionate appointment is within the discretion of the competent authority, depending upon the suitability of the candidate for the particular job and the merits of each case and the relevant portion of the said RBE reads as under: - “3. Board have also decided that the type of job to be offered to a candidate found suitable for compassionate appointment will be left to the discretion of the competent authority and it will depend on the suitability of the candidate for the particular job and the merits of each case.

4. Board desire that while considering cases for appointment on compassionate grounds, the decisions of the Board as mentioned in the preceding paragraphs, may be kept in view”.

4.11 With regard to the case of Ku. Shanu Singh, learned counsel submitted that her case was entirely different. She was initially allotted the post of Welder Grade-III at Dahod Workshop. Subsequently, on the request of her family, her compassionate appointment case was transferred to Vadodara Division under the applicable instructions. 4.12 It was submitted that Ku. Shanu Singh possessed the qualifications of M.A. and LL.M. and was medically fit in category B/1. Her case was considered against an anticipated vacancy for Chief Law Assistant, having regard to her qualifications, medical classification and the applicable instructions. 4.13 Learned counsel therefore submitted that the applicant cannot claim parity with Ku. Shanu Singh merely on the basis of her appointment. 4.14 Learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138, and submitted that compassionate appointment is a concession and not a matter of right. 4.15 Learned counsel further placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in The Director of Town Panchayat & P ANUKUMA

::9 :: OA No.414/2025

Others v. M. Jayabal & Another, Civil Appeal Nos. 12640–12643 of 2025, decided on 12.12.2025, to contend that an employee who has accepted and joined a post on compassionate grounds cannot subsequently claim appointment to a higher post merely on the basis of superior educational qualifications. Learned counsel submitted that the judgment relied upon by the applicant in O.A. No. 1128 of 2015 is distinguishable and cannot override the subsequent law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Hence, the present OA should be dismissed.

5. Applicant has filed rejoinder and additional submissions as under: 5.1 It was submitted that the applicant was initially recommended for Group-'C' appointment by the Screening Committee on 13.01.2022 and was subsequently considered for various categories, including Commercial Clerk, Sub-Inspector and Assistant Station Master. He was also permitted to appear in the common CBT examination. 5.2 Learned counsel contended that despite possessing an LL.B. degree and having no ITI or Diploma qualification, the applicant was allotted the technical post of Technician/Fitter Grade-III without properly considering his suitability for legal or ministerial categories, contrary to the spirit of Railway Board’s Master Circular No.16. 5.3 It was further submitted that the applicant continuously requested consideration for Welfare Inspector and Chief Law Assistant through various representations, including those dated 15.02.2024 and 01.06.2024. Therefore, he never voluntarily accepted the technical category without protest. 5.4 Learned counsel relied upon the case of Ku. Shanu Singh, who was initially allotted the post of Welder Grade-III but was subsequently considered and accommodated as Chief Law Assistant on the basis of her legal qualification and anticipated vacancy. It was contended that denial of similar consideration to the applicant, who also possesses a law degree, amounts to discrimination and violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. P ANUKUMA

::10 :: OA No.414/2025

5.5 It was submitted that the judgments in Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana and The Director of Town Panchayat v. M. Jayabal are distinguishable, as the applicant is not claiming a higher post merely on the basis of qualification but is seeking fair consideration for a suitable category under the applicable Railway policy. 5.6 Learned counsel further relied upon the RTI reply dated 05.03.2026 (Annexure A/22), wherein the respondents clarified that no seniority is assigned during training and that seniority is assigned only after regularisation, successful completion of training and passing of the trade test. Therefore, the applicant contended that his request for reconsideration should not have been rejected mechanically on the ground of change of category.

6. Respondents have filed additional affidavit and submitted that the applicant’s appointment as Technician/Fitter Grade-III on compassionate grounds was made in accordance with the applicable Railway Board instructions. 6.1 Railway Board Circular No. RBE 113/2000 dated 19.06.2000 specifically prescribes 10th pass as the minimum educational qualification for compassionate appointment as Skilled Artisan Grade-III, with three years of training. The ITI/Act Apprenticeship requirement applies to open-market recruitment. 6.2 RBE No. 34/2008 and RBE No. 166/2010 further provide for three years of training for matriculates and candidates possessing non- technical higher qualifications. The applicant’s B.A./LL.B. qualification falls within the category of non-technical higher qualification. Thus, his appointment was permissible subject to prescribed training. 6.3 RBE No. 92/2024 dated 09.10.2024 revised the training provisions. Subsequently, RBE No. 51/2025 dated 06.06.2025 clarified that matriculation or any higher qualification may be considered for the prescribed two-year training category. These subsequent instructions do not invalidate the applicant’s earlier appointment. P ANUKUMA

::11 :: OA No.414/2025

6.4 The Applicant was screened on 02.01.2024 and recommended for Technician/Fitter Grade-III by the competent authority. The Respondents submit that the allotment was made after considering the applicable scheme and relevant conditions. 6.5 The applicant’s B.A./LL.B. qualification does not confer an automatic right to appointment as Chief Law Assistant or Welfare Inspector. Such appointment depends upon eligibility, suitability, availability of vacancies and approval of the competent authority. 6.6 In view of the above, the respondents submit that the appointment of the applicant as Technician/Fitter Grade-III was permissible under the applicable rules and that no illegality is made out. The OA, therefore, deserves to be dismissed.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

8. The principal question which arises for consideration is whether the applicant, having been appointed as Technician/Fitter Grade-III on compassionate grounds, is entitled to a direction for his appointment or reconsideration for the post of Chief Law Assistant (CLA) on the basis of his B.A., LL.B. qualification.

9. There is no dispute that the father of the applicant died in harness while serving in the Railway Protection Force. The applicant was thereafter considered for compassionate appointment and was examined for different categories. He could not qualify the Physical Efficiency Test for the post of Sub-Inspector, RPF. Subsequently, although he qualified in the written examination for the post of Station Master, he could not qualify the prescribed Psychological/Aptitude Test despite being given another opportunity.

10. The record further indicates that the applicant was thereafter considered by the Screening Committee on 02.01.2024 and recommended for appointment as Technician/Fitter Grade-III in the Mechanical Department, Level-2. Accordingly, an offer of appointment dated 13.02.2024 was issued to him. The applicant ultimately joined the said post on 05.09.2024. P ANUKUMA

::12 :: OA No.414/2025

11. The applicant has primarily contended that, being a B.A., LL.B. graduate with specialisation in Labour Laws, his suitability for a legal or welfare-related post, particularly Chief Law Assistant, ought to have been considered before allotting him the technical post of Technician/Fitter Grade-III. It is also stated that he had repeatedly represented against the allotment and, therefore, his joining cannot be treated as voluntary acceptance of the technical category.

12. On the other hand, the respondents have submitted that the appointment as Technician/Fitter Grade-III was permissible under the specific Railway Board instructions governing compassionate appointment to the Skilled Artisan category. In this regard, reliance has been placed upon RBE No. 113/2000 dated 19.06.2000. 12.1 The said circular specifically provides that the minimum educational qualification for compassionate appointment to the post of Skilled Artisan Grade-III shall be 10th pass, while retaining the separate qualification of Act Apprenticeship/ITI in the relevant trade for open-market recruitment. It also prescribes a training period of three years for such compassionate appointees.

13. The respondents have further relied upon RBE No. 34/2008 and RBE No. 166/2010, which provide for the prescribed training period for matriculates and persons possessing non-technical higher qualifications. The applicant's B.A., LL.B. qualification falls within the category of non-technical higher qualification for this purpose.

14. We also take note of RBE No. 92/2024 dated 09.10.2024 and the subsequent corrigendum RBE No. 51/2025 dated 06.06.2025. The latter clarifies the training category by including matriculation alone or matriculation along with non-relevant ITI courses or any other higher qualification. These instructions concern the period of training and do not, by themselves, establish any entitlement to appointment as Chief Law Assistant.

15. In view of the aforesaid instructions, we are unable to accept the contention that the applicant’s appointment as Technician/Fitter P ANUKUMA

::13 :: OA No.414/2025

Grade-III was illegal merely because he did not possess ITI or technical qualification. The specific compassionate appointment instructions relied upon by the respondents prescribe a different educational qualification from that applicable to open-market recruitment. The appointment was, however, subject to the prescribed training and other applicable conditions.

16. The next question is whether the applicant's educational qualification gives him an enforceable right to appointment as Chief Law Assistant. In this regard, it is well settled that compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule of recruitment and is intended to provide immediate financial assistance to the family of a deceased employee. It cannot be treated as a mode of recruitment through which a dependent can claim a particular post merely on the basis of his educational qualification.

17. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138, observed that compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right and must be governed by the applicable rules and instructions.

18. The applicant has placed reliance upon RBE No. 26/2021 concerning the eligibility criteria for the post of Chief Law Assistant. Even assuming that the applicant possesses the requisite educational qualification for consideration against the said post, mere possession of the prescribed qualification does not confer an automatic right to compassionate appointment as Chief Law Assistant. His claim would also depend upon the applicable compassionate appointment policy, suitability, availability of vacancy and approval of the competent authority.

19. The provision in Master Circular No. 16 concerning consideration of suitable candidates for Group-C posts, including legal categories, has to be read along with the other applicable Railway Board instructions. It cannot be interpreted as conferring an unconditional right to demand a particular post.

20. The applicant has also relied upon the case of Ku. Shanu Singh, who was initially allotted the post of Welder Grade-III and was P ANUKUMA

::14 :: OA No.414/2025

subsequently considered for the post of Chief Law Assistant in Vadodara Division. The respondents have explained that her case involved different circumstances, including transfer of her compassionate appointment case to Vadodara Division, her educational qualifications, medical classification and consideration against an anticipated vacancy.

21. In our considered view, the case of another employee cannot create an enforceable right in favour of the applicant. The applicant would be required to establish that the cases were identical in all material respects and that the benefit extended to the other employee was in accordance with the applicable rules. The respondents have pointed out material differences in her case, namely transfer of her case to Vadodara Division, her qualifications of M.A. and LL.M., her medical category B/1 and consideration against an anticipated vacancy, and the applicant has not shown that he was similarly placed. Further, negative discrimination cannot be claimed where no right is made out (M. Jayabal (supra), para 24).

22. In this context, the recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in The Director of Town Panchayat & Others v. M. Jayabal & Another, Civil Appeal Nos. 12640–12643 of 2025 and connected matters, decided on 12.12.2025, is relevant. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as under: - “22. If the facts of the case in hand are considered, in our view, belated applications made by the respondents seeking appointment on a higher post, after they had already been appointed on a lower post, was rightly rejected by the competent authority. The view expressed by learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court directing their appointment on a higher post w.e.f the date of judgement was certainly erroneous and contrary to the spirit of the law laid down by this Court on the subject.

23. In our view, the issue of discrepancies/anomalies, as were sought to be pointed out with respect to the relevant government orders, or the rights which, according to the respondents, were flowing to them on the basis of the said government orders, is not required to be touched as, for the purpose of grant or refusal of relief to the respondents, nothing hinges on the said government orders.

24. The only plea raised by the respondents/M. Jayabal & S. Veeramani for seeking appointment on a higher post was P ANUKUMA

::15 :: OA No.414/2025

that they were ignorant about their right for such appointment, initially, on a higher post and that a similar relief having been granted to others, the respondents should not be discriminated against. It is well-settled that ignorance of law is not an excuse, as a result of which, such plea raised by the respondents cannot be entertained. Further, negative discrimination cannot be claimed if a no right can be made out as per the settled position of law.

25. For the reasons mentioned above, we find merit in the present appeals. The same are accordingly allowed and the impugned judgment/s of the High Court are set aside. Resultantly, W.P.No.16759 of 2015 filed by respondent/M. Jayabal and W.P. No 16758 of 2015 filed by respondent/S. Veeramani before the High Court are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs”.

23. The representations dated 15.02.2024 and 01.06.2024 are on record. In the first, addressed to the Divisional Railway Manager, Vadodara, the applicant sought appointment as Welfare Inspector, referring to the Railway Board’s letter No. E(NG)II/2021/RR-I/66 dated 13.04.2022 and to his earlier applications. It states that he had applied on 28.01.2022 with reference to the said letter dated 13.04.2022, which is not possible in point of time; nothing, however, turns on this. In the second, addressed to the Principal Chief Personnel Officer, he sought appointment as Chief Law Assistant on the basis of his LL.B. degree, stating that he had failed the psychological test for Station Master twice, that the post of Fitter-III was not suitable for a law graduate, that he was willing to work in any division of the Western Railway, and that his family was facing financial difficulty. Neither representation raises the grounds now urged before us, namely Master Circular No. 16, the Railway Board’s letter dated 07.08.2009, the case of Ku. Shanu Singh, or discrimination under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. These grounds have been raised for the first time in the OA and the rejoinder. The competent authority cannot be faulted for not dealing with grounds which were never placed before it. 23.1 The representations preceded his joining on 05.09.2024, but this does not alter the position. Both sought a post of his choice on the basis of his educational qualification alone, after he had been considered for different categories and allotted a post by the P ANUKUMA

::16 :: OA No.414/2025

Screening Committee. The principle reiterated in M. Jayabal (supra), that a person given compassionate appointment cannot claim appointment to a higher post on that basis, applies. The representations entitled him to have his request considered, not to the post he sought.

24. The impugned communication dated 14.08.2025 was issued by the General Manager (Establishment), Western Railway, in compliance with the earlier direction of this Tribunal in O.A. No. 216 of 2025. The applicant’s request was considered and rejected with reference to his acceptance of the offered appointment and the applicable instructions. The communication is thus a reasoned decision on the request as actually made. We find no material before us to establish that the said decision was taken by an authority lacking competence or that the applicant had an absolute right to the change sought.

25. The applicant has also relied upon the RTI reply dated 05.03.2026, according to which seniority is not assigned during training and is assigned after regularisation, successful completion of training and passing of the trade test. The said information relates to the manner in which seniority is determined in the Technician category. It does not establish any right in favour of the applicant to be appointed as Chief Law Assistant.

26. The decisions of the Principal Bench in O.A. No. 1128 of 2015 and of the Jammu Bench in O.A. No. 61/1001/2021 relied upon by the applicant are based on different facts and circumstances and orders were passed as they were discriminated against similarly situated persons which is not the case here. In view of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Umesh Kumar Nagpal (supra) and M. Jayabal (supra), the said decisions, therefore, do not advance the applicant’s case.

27. We are, therefore, of the considered view that the applicant has failed to establish any enforceable right to be appointed as Chief Law Assistant on compassionate grounds from the date of his initial appointment as Technician/Fitter Grade-III. His educational P ANUKUMA

::17 :: OA No.414/2025

qualification, though relevant for determining eligibility for a particular post, cannot by itself confer a right to such appointment or to notional seniority and consequential benefits. The respondents have also placed on record the relevant Railway Board instructions to demonstrate that the initial appointment as Technician/Fitter Grade-III was permissible under the compassionate appointment scheme, subject to prescribed training. No sufficient ground has been made out for setting aside the impugned communications dated 26.06.2024 and 14.08.2025 or the appointment order dated 13.02.2024.

28. In view of the foregoing discussions:

(i) OA stands dismissed.

(ii) There shall be no order as to costs.

(iii) MA pending if any, also stands disposed of.

(Sanjiv Kumar)

(Jayesh V Bhairavia)

Member (A)

Member (J)

//Anu// P ANUKUMA