DINESH KUMAR KASHYAP & ORS. ETC. versus SOUTH EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY & ORS. ETC.

DINESH KUMAR KASHYAP & ORS. ETC. versus SOUTH EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY & ORS. ETC.

Per Deepak Gupta and Kurian Joseph, JJ: State arbitrariness is not permitted under Article 14; when posts are vacant and selection process followed, employer must justify not appointing candidates from replacement panel. As SECR failed to offer cogent reasons, directions issued to offer appointment to eligible appellants. Per Hemant Gupta, J (dissent): Candidates in replacement/waiting lists have no indefeasible right; State's decision not to fill 624 posts was not arbitrary; validity of select panel had ended; therefore, no interference warranted.

Parties
Appellants: Dinesh Kumar Kashyap & Ors.; Respondents: South East Central Railway & Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
27 November 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Orders of Central Administrative Tribunal and High Court of Chhattisgarh
Outcome
Appeals disposed of
Legal Topics
Appointment of Selected Candidates, Right to Appointment, Arbitrariness in State Action, Validity of Select Panels, Judicial Review
Service Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Appointment of Selected Candidates Right to Appointment Arbitrariness in State Action Validity of Select Panels Judicial Review

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dinesh Kumar Kashyap & Ors.

Appellants

South East Central Railway & Ors.

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Orders of Central Administrative Tribunal and High Court of Chhattisgarh

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellants, part of the extra 20% replacement panel, have a right to appointment to unfilled Group-D posts in South East Central Railway
  2. 2 Whether the action of the Railway in not filling 624 vacant posts with replacement panel candidates was arbitrary

Ratio Decidendi

Per Deepak Gupta and Kurian Joseph, JJ: State arbitrariness is not permitted under Article 14; when posts are vacant and selection process followed, employer must justify not appointing candidates from replacement panel. As SECR failed to offer cogent reasons, directions issued to offer appointment to eligible appellants. Per Hemant Gupta, J (dissent): Candidates in replacement/waiting lists have no indefeasible right; State's decision not to fill 624 posts was not arbitrary; validity of select panel had ended; therefore, no interference warranted.

Court Disposition

Appeals disposed of

Orders

  • Per majority (Deepak Gupta, Kurian Joseph, JJ): Judgments of CAT and High Court are set aside. Respondent No. 1 to offer appointment to eligible appellants from extra 20% replacement panel.
  • Per Hemant Gupta, J (dissent): Appeals dismissed. No interference in orders of Tribunal and High Court.