[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Patna High Court
The Union Of India vs Md. Salim Akthar Ansari on 9 December, 2025
Author: Mohit Kumar Shah
Bench: Mohit Kumar Shah
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 18951 of 2025
======================================================
1. The Union of India through the General Manager, East Central Railway,
Hajipur- Vaishali (Bihar).
2. The General Manager (Personnel), East Central Railway, Hajipur- Vaishali
(Bihar).
3. The Senior Deputy General Manager (G), East Central Railway, Hajipur-
Vaishali (Bihar).
4. The Deputy General Manager (Law), East Central Railway Biscoman
Bhawan, Near Gandhi Maidan, Patna (Bihar).
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
Md. Salim Akthar Ansari, Male, Son of Md. Sagir Ansari, Stastical Inspector
(Admin), Office of Deputy General Manager (G), East Central Railway,
Hajipur (Bihar).
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance:
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Kumar Priya Ranjan, Sr. CGC
Mr. Ram Tujabh Singh, CGC
For the Respondent/s :
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH
and
HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH)
Date: 09-12-2025
The present writ petition has been filed against the order
dated 05.03.2025 passed by the learned Central Administrative
Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna (hereinafter referred to as the 'Ld.
C.A.T.') in O.A. No. 050/00005/2017 whereby and whereunder
the said Original application filed by the respondent herein has
been allowed, the impugned order dated 10.01.2017 passed by
Patna High Court CWJC No.18951 of 2025 dt.09-12-2025
2/9
the petitioners rejecting the representation of the sole respondent
has been set aside and the petitioners have been directed to
proceed as per the provisions contained in Rule 223 of IREM
Vol. I with regard to Supplementary Selection/Suitability Test
and complete the whole exercise of selection qua the respondent
within a period of 3 months of the date of receipt of the order.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the office of the
General Manager (Personnel), East Central Railway, Hajipur,
District - Vaishali (Bihar) i.e. the petitioner No.2 had issued a
notification dated 09.03.2016 for holding selection for forming a
panel of Chief Law Assistant under 60% promotional quota for
12 vacancies. The respondent had then submitted his
application, whereafter the petitioner No.2 had published a list
of eligible persons on 17.05.2016 in which the name of the
respondent appears at Serial No.5. Thereafter, the petitioner
No.2 had issued another letter dated 13.06.2016 whereby the
date of written examination had been scheduled for 30.06.2016
and the respondent had also appeared in the said examination. In
the meantime, before publication of the result of the written
examination held on 30.06.2016, the Railway Board, New Delhi
had approved the name of the respondent for his posting/transfer
to Saudi Arabia as Haj Assistant with effect from 21.07.2016
Patna High Court CWJC No.18951 of 2025 dt.09-12-2025
3/9
vide order dated 18.07.2016 where he remained up to
18.09.2016
. After returning back from Saudi Arabia, the
respondent had met with a road accident on 21.09.2016 and he
remained indisposed from 21.09.2016 to 17.11.2016. However,
in the meanwhile the earlier written examination held on
30.06.2016 was cancelled vide order dated 25.07.2016 and fresh
examination was held on 23.08.2016 against the aforesaid
selection process notified vide notification dated 09.03.2016,
wherein three persons were declared to be successful as against
12 vacancies. The respondent is stated to have filed a
representation on 13.12.2016 inter alia stating therein that
neither he has received any intimation about cancellation of the
examination nor he has received any intimation about holding of
fresh examination nor any supplementary examination has been
conducted till date, however vide letter dated 26.12.2016 issued
by the petitioner No.2, a decision was taken to hold viva voce
test on 04.01.2017. Thereafter, the respondent had approached
the Ld. C.A.T. by filing the connected original application for
cancelling the order dated 26.12.2016 as also for directing the
petitioners to hold a fresh written examination for all including
respondent herein and accordingly publish fresh result.
3. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the
Patna High Court CWJC No.18951 of 2025 dt.09-12-2025
petitioners that written examination was held on 30.06.2016 in
which the respondent had also appeared, however the same was
cancelled on account of administrative reasons with intimation
to all concerned and then the date of examination was re-fixed
for 23.8.2016 with due intimation to all the concerned
departments, however the respondent did not appear in the re-
examination. As far as the representation of the respondent
dated 13.12.2016 for holding re-examination is concerned, it is
submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that since
the respondent was on deputation at Saudi Arabia for Haj duty
from 26.07.2016 to 18.09.2016, the said representation was
disposed on 10.01.2017 on the basis of paragraph No. 15.2.1 of
the Master Circular No. 68 wherein it has been mentioned that
in general selection there is no scope for holding any
supplementary examination. It is stated that the final result of
the aforesaid selection process has been published vide letter
dated 10.01.2017. Hence, it is submitted that since the
respondent had volunteered for Haj duty on deputation, he could
not appear in the re-examination held on 23.08.2016, thus there
is no infirmity in the decision of the petitioners, as contained in
letter dated 10.01.2017, whereby the representation of the
respondent to hold re-examination has been rejected.
Patna High Court CWJC No.18951 of 2025 dt.09-12-2025
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and
perused the materials on record. The facts of the present case lie
in a narrow encompass inasmuch as the petitioner No.2 had
issued a notification dated 09.03.2016 for holding selection for
forming a panel of Chief Law Assistant under 60% promotional
quota for 12 vacancies, whereafter the examination was held on
30.06.2016 but the same was unfortunately cancelled and then
re-examination was held on 23.08.2016, however, the
respondent could not appear in the said examination since
firstly, he was not having any knowledge about the same and
secondly, during the said period he was on deputation to Saudi
Arabia on Haj duty.
5. At this juncture, we deem it fit and proper to quote
paragraph No. 15 of the Master Circular No. 68 herein below:-
"15. SUPPLEMENTARY EXAMINATION
15.1 Selection for 70% vacancies
15.1.1. Not more than one supplementary selection should
be held to cater to the absentees. While holding the
supplementary selection all care and caution should be
exercised to ensure that employees who did not avail of the
main selection are provided the opportunity at the
supplementary selection. Measures to notify the employees
either for the main selection or the supplementary
selection, particularly in cases where employees are
serving outside the Railway including employees on
Patna High Court CWJC No.18951 of 2025 dt.09-12-2025
deputation should not be routine.
(Para 207 1 of IREM)"
6. We would also refer to Rule 223 of the IREM, Vol.1
which is quoted herein below:-
"223. Supplementary Selection/Suitability Test
1. (i) A supplementary selection may be held in the
following types of cases:-
(a) summons for interview being received too late by the
candidates making it difficult for him to reach the place of
interview;
(b) Administration's failure to relieve him in time for
interview;
(c) Sickness of the candidate or other reason over which
the employee has no control. Unavoidable absence will not
however, include absence to attend a wedding or similar
function or absence over which he has controlled. Sickness
should be covered by a specific service from the Railway
Medical Officer.
(ii) The supplementary meeting of the Selection Board
should as far as possible be attended by the same Officers
who were present at the first Selection Board and held
within one month of the first selection or the return to duty
of the employee concerned provided that the employee
returned to duty not later than three months after the
holding of the first selection. In case the return of the
employee is delayed beyond three months, the result of the
selection need not be deferred, the name of the employee
being incorporated as if he had appeared at the selection
when first held. The employee will not be eligible to be
Patna High Court CWJC No.18951 of 2025 dt.09-12-2025
considered if he returns to duty more than six months after
the date of the first selection.
(iii) Not more than one supplementary selection should
normally be held to cater to the needs of absentee due to
sickness, non-intimation/late intimation of dates of tests
etc. The second supplementary selection should be held
rarely and with the personal approval of Chief Personnel
Officer based on merits of each case.
II. For non-selection post, if an employee is unable to
appear in a suitability test within a period of six months
due to reasons beyond his control, such as prolonged
illness, he should be subjected to supplementary suitability
test within a reasonable-period after return to duty and
being found suitable for promotion, he should be assigned
proforma seniority position vis-a-vis his juniors promoted
earlier."
7. A bare perusal of paragraph No. 15 of the Master
Circular No. 68 as also Rule 223 of IREM, Vol. I would show
that there is provision for holding supplementary selection on
account of various reasons which also includes sickness of the
candidate or other reasons over which the employee has got no
control. Now coming back to the present case, we find that the
respondent was holding the post of Statistical Inspector
(Administrative), E.C.R. Headquarter and he had applied for the
post of Chief Law Assistant/Law Superintendent, pursuant to
issuance of notification dated 09.03.2016 and though he had
appeared in the initial examination held on 30.06.2016, which
Patna High Court CWJC No.18951 of 2025 dt.09-12-2025
was later cancelled, however he could not appear in the re-
examination held on 23.08.2016, inasmuch as firstly, it is the
claim of the respondent that no information about re-
examination was given to him, secondly the respondent was on
deputation to Saudi Arabia from 21.07.2016 to 18.09.2016 and
thirdly, he had met with a road accident on 21.09.2016, as such
he had remained indisposed from 21.09.2016 to 17.11.2016.
Therefore, we find that the petitioners could have held at least
one supplementary selection/test/examination, as has been
envisaged in the aforesaid Master Circular/Rule so as to not
deprive the respondent of an opportunity of promotion without
any fault on his part.
8. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the
case and for the foregoing reasons, we do not find any error
much less any illegality in the observation made by the Ld.
C.A.T. with regard to holding of supplementary selection/
suitability test in terms of paragraph No. 15 of the Master
Circular No. 68 and Rule 223 of the IREM, Vol. I, thus the
present writ petition stands dismissed being bereft of any merit.
9. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the Ld. C.A.T. by the impugned judgment dated
05.03.2025 had prescribed three months' time for completing
Patna High Court CWJC No.18951 of 2025 dt.09-12-2025
the exercise pertaining to holding of supplementary selection/
suitability test and taking consequential action, however the said
period has already stood expired, hence the petitioner be granted
further three months from today for the said purpose. Time, so
sought, is granted.
(Mohit Kumar Shah, J)
(Soni Shrivastava, J)
GAURAV S../-
AFR/NAFR AFR
Uploading Date 16.12.2025
Transmission Date NA
