Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Number | C.A. No.-011462-011462 – 2025 |
| Diary Number | 28123/2023 |
| Judge Name | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE J.K. MAHESHWARI |
| Bench | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE J.K. MAHESHWARI; HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI |
| Precedent Value | Affirms existing law |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms |
| Type of Law | Railway Service & Recruitment Law |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Master Circular and provisional appointment letters make successful completion of initial training and passing of a written test a mandatory prerequisite for permanent absorption of directly recruited SSEs. “Recruitment” is distinct from “appointment,” and failure to pass the training test justifies termination. Departmental exams apply only to promotions, not direct recruitment. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
Respondent provisionally appointed as SSE trainee; 52-week training under Master Circular; failed G&SR module twice out of several candidates; terminated; CAT Patna and High Court decisions; appeal allowed by Supreme Court. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All railway service tribunals and subordinate courts |
| Persuasive For | High Courts and tribunals on service law and administrative matters |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The Court reaffirmed that direct recruits to Group ‘C’ posts under Master Circular No.29/1991 must not only undergo initial training but also pass a written examination at its conclusion as a mandatory condition of permanent appointment.
- Clarifies that “recruitment” (provisional selection) and “appointment” (permanent posting) are distinct steps; permanent status vests only upon fulfilling training and test requirements.
- Confirms that “departmental examinations” relate solely to promotion and do not substitute the training-end written test for direct recruits.
- Holds that recovery of stipend paid by administrative mistake during a no-stipend second training attempt is unjustified and can be rejected.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
-
Master Circular Interpretation
Clauses 2, 3 and 3.1 of Master Circular No.29/1991 mandate an initial training period and a written test thereafter, warning that retention depends on passing this test.
-
Railway Manual & Revised Module
The Indian Railway Establishment Manual, 1989 defines trainee status and direct recruitment; RBE No.11/2010 prescribes a 52-week training broken into modules, including G&SR.
-
Provisional Appointment Warnings
Employment Notice and appointment letter explicitly conditioned service retention on satisfactory training performance and test success.
-
Recruitment vs Appointment Doctrine
Following Prafulla Kumar Swain, “recruitment” is initial selection; “appointment” occurs only upon completion of stipulated prerequisites (training + test).
-
Fact Analysis
Respondent failed the G&SR module exam twice alongside numerous peers who succeeded; termination under Master Circular was lawful; no discrimination found.
-
High Court Error
The High Court misread the materials as prescribing no “departmental examination,” overlooking the training test requirement.
-
Stipend Recovery
Though second training was to be no-stipend, payment was an administrative error; recovery demand was unjustified under the circumstances.
Arguments by the Parties
Appellants (Railway Authorities)
- Master Circular and employment conditions mandate written test post-training for retention.
- Training module and provisional appointment letter warn of termination upon unsatisfactory training performance.
- Respondent failed G&SR training exam twice; termination was lawful.
- “Departmental examinations” are distinct from training exams and apply only to promotions.
- Stipend paid in error; recovery notice justified but amount unrecoverable due to administrative mistake.
Respondent
- Four co-trainees were absorbed without undergoing G&SR training despite identical training duration.
- Termination was arbitrary, discriminatory, violative of Articles 14 and 16.
- Revised Training Module did not prescribe any additional exam precondition.
- Master Circular did not apply to SSE recruits under a specific training module.
Factual Background
Respondent cleared RRB written exam for Senior Section Engineer (SSE) and received provisional appointment in 2016 subject to a 52-week training and a written test under Master Circular No.29/1991 and Railway Manual. After 46 weeks, he underwent a 3-week G&SR module twice (first with stipend, second without) and failed both exams. His services were terminated in January 2019 and he was asked to refund stipend. CAT Patna dismissed his challenge; Patna High Court set aside termination, holding no test was prescribed. Railway appeal reached the Supreme Court.
Statutory Analysis
-
Master Circular No.29/1991
- Clause 2: Initial training period mandatory.
- Clause 3: Written test required at training end.
- Clause 3.1: Candidates warned that retention depends on test success.
- Indian Railway Establishment Manual, 1989: Defines “trainee,” “apprentice,” and “direct recruitment”; training durations fixed by Zonal Railways.
- RBE No.11/2010 Revised Training Module: 52-week program in eight modules, including G&SR training.
- Doctrine from Prafulla Kumar Swain: “Recruitment” vs “appointment”—recruitment is approval, appointment is posting upon fulfilling conditions.
Alert Indicators
- 🚫 Breaking Precedent – None
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Reaffirms Prafulla Kumar Swain doctrine and service-law principles
- ⚖️ Split Verdict – No
- 📅 Time-Sensitive – No
- 🔄 Conflicting Decisions – High Court’s view corrected by Supreme Court