The Supreme Court held that successful completion of prescribed training, including passing the requisite written test, is a mandatory condition precedent for confirmation in service for direct recruits to Group ‘C’ non-gazetted railway posts. Failure to clear this training examination validly entitles the employer to terminate services, as it is a fundamental term of recruitment governed by the Master Circular.
Facts Of The Case:
The case involved Alok Kumar, who was provisionally appointed as a Senior Section Engineer (Trainee) in the Railways after clearing a recruitment examination. His appointment was conditional on the successful completion of a 52-week training program. After 46 weeks of field training, he was sent, along with other trainees, to a three-week General and Subsidiary Rules (G&SR) course. Kumar failed the subsequent written examination. As per rules for OBC candidates, he was granted a second attempt without stipend, but he failed again. Consequently, the Railways terminated his services for failing to complete the mandatory training. Kumar challenged his termination before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), alleging discrimination. He contended that other similarly selected trainees had been permanently appointed without undergoing the G&SR training. The CAT upheld the termination. On appeal, the High Court set aside the termination, ruling that no “departmental examination” was prescribed for granting permanent status. The Union of India then appealed to the Supreme Court against the High Court’s decision.
Procedural History:
The procedural history of this case began with the respondent challenging his termination and a recovery order before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Patna. The CAT dismissed his Original Application, upholding the termination. The respondent then filed a writ petition before the Patna High Court, which was initially withdrawn to seek a remedy from the Railway Board. Subsequently, his review and miscellaneous applications before the CAT were also dismissed. The respondent then filed a fresh writ petition before the High Court, which allowed it, setting aside the termination and directing his reinstatement with benefits. This decision of the High Court was challenged by the Union of India through a Special Leave Petition (SLP) in the Supreme Court, leading to the present civil appeal and the judgment which set aside the High Court’s order and restored the validity of the termination.
READ ALSO:Supreme Court Clarifies: Reserved Candidates Availing Age, Physical Relaxations Can’t Migrate to General Quota
Court Observation:
The Supreme Court made several key observations, central to which was the interpretation of the recruitment rules. The Court emphasized that the Master Circular explicitly mandated a written test upon completion of initial training as a prerequisite for confirmation in service. It distinguished this “training examination” from “departmental examinations,” clarifying that the latter are for promotions, while the former is an integral part of the direct recruitment process itself. The Court observed that the provisional appointment was merely an offer of recruitment and that permanent absorption was contingent upon successfully clearing this mandatory training and its culminating test. It further held that the High Court had erred in concluding that no such examination was prescribed, as the Master Circular, the employment notice, and the appointment letter collectively established this condition. Consequently, the termination for failing the examination twice was deemed legal and valid.
Final Decision & Judgement:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the Union of India and set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court. Consequently, the respondent’s writ petition was dismissed, and the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) upholding the termination of his services was restored. The Court held that the termination was legal and justified as the respondent had failed to clear the mandatory training examination, which was a stipulated condition for confirmation. However, the Court also set aside the demand for the recovery of the stipend paid during his second training attempt, deeming the recovery unjust in the peculiar circumstances of the case.
Case Details:
Case Title: Union of India & Ors. Versus Alok Kumar CITATION: (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 17844 of 2023) Date of Judgement: 09th September, 2025 Judges/Justice Name: Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Vijay Bishnoi
Download The Judgement Here