Krishna Kumar Pandey … v. …

aggrieved by non-consideration of his claim for engagement as ‘Substitute’, petitioner filed Original Application No.114 of 2016 along with other persons before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as “Tribunal”) praying therein for a decision on his application for engagement as ‘Substitute’. (4) The Original Application No.114 of 2016 was dismissed by the Tribunal vide order dated 01.03.2016 on the ground of delay. Thereafter, petitioner along with others filed Writ Petition No.8105 (S/B) of 2016, challenging judgment and order dated

16.11.2017 passed in Original Application No.114 of 2016, which was allowed with a direction to decide the Original Application on merit vide judgment and order dated 16.11.2017. (5) Subsequently, another Original Application, numbered as Diary No.332/03704/2017 was filed by the petitioner along with four others with the following main prayer: 3 WRIT - A No. - 5738 of 2024 “(a) That this Hon’ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to decide the case on merit regarding appointments of the applicants on the post of SUBSTITUTES in accordance with the Railways in accordance with the Railway Board CIRCULAR dated 17.09.2010 contained in Annexure No.2 to this Original Application as COMPILATION-1 as directed by the Hon’ble High Court, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow in the Writ Petition No.8105 (SB) of 2016 on 16.11.2017.” (6) This Original Application was disposed of vide order dated

15.02.2018 with the consent of the parties, with a direction to the respondents, i.e., departmental authorities to decide the representations submitted by the applicants/petitioners. (7) The representations so preferred by the petitioner, after due consideration, were rejected and communicated to the petitioner vide order dated 28.05.2018. The petitioner thereafter filed another Original Application No.332/00290/2018, which was again disposed of vide judgment and order dated 16.08.2023 with the consent of parties, with a direction to respondents/competent authority to decide the representations of the applicants for engagement as ‘Substitutes’ in terms of letter No.E(NG)-11/2008/S.B./S.R./15 dated 17.09.2010 (RBE No.137/ 2010), in light of the judgment passed in O.A. No.363 of 2006 dated 22.02.2008 by CAT, Mumbai Bench, as confirmed by the Hon’ble High Court in Writ Petition No.4586 of 2008 (UOI & Ors vs. Renuka M. Kamble & Ors.) and O.A. No.516 of 2013 dated

21.08.2018 passed by CAT, Kolkata Bench. The competent authority thereafter considered the representations of the petitioner in compliance with the order dated 16.08.2023 passed in O.A. No. 332/00290/2018 and disposed of the representations vide order dated 22.12.2023. The order dated 22.12.2023 was again challenged by the petitioner in O.A. No.332/00102/2024. The O.A. No.332/00102/2024 was disposed of on the request of the 4 WRIT - A No. - 5738 of 2024 petitioner vide order dated 29.02.2024 to decide the representation dated 30.12.2023 preferred by the petitioner. Thus, the O.A. No.332/00102/2024 was disposed of without any finding with regard to the order dated 22.12.2023, which was challenged in the Original Application. In compliance with the order passed in O.A. No.332/00102/2024, the representation dated 30.12.2023 was duly considered and disposed of vide order dated 29.02.2024 rejecting the petitioner’s claim for engagement as ‘Substitutes’ in terms of letter No.E(NG)-11/2008/S.B./S.R./15 dated 17.09.2010 (RBE No.137/ 2010). The petitioner thereafter has filed the present writ petition challenging the order dated 29.02.2024, which is an order passed on consent in O.A. No. 332/00102/2024 as well as the order dated 15.04.2024 whereby the representation of the petitioner in compliance with the judgment and order dated

29.02.2024 was rejected. (8) In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents, specific objections have been taken regarding the maintainability of the present writ petition on the ground that the judgment of the Tribunal dated 29.02.2024 passed in O.A. No. 332/00102/2024 is based on the consent of the parties and hence, cannot be challenged by either of the parties. It has been further contended that the relief was confined to the disposal of the representation dated 30.12.2023, whereas the order dated 22.12.2023 in earlier O.A. No. 332/00290/2018, by which earlier his claim for engagement as ‘Substitutes’ was rejected is still intact and hence, another rejection of the claim vide order dated 15.4.2024 is not open for challenge. Alternately, it has been argued after the passing of the order dated 15.04.2024 on the representation dated

30.12.2023, the petitioner can challenge the order dated

15.04.2024 before the learned Central Administrative Tribunal but the writ petition challenging the order dated 15.04.2024 is not maintainable. 5 WRIT - A No. - 5738 of 2024 (9) Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that the present writ petition filed by the petitioner is completely misconceived, inasmuch as the judgment and order dated 29.02.2024 passed in O.A. No.332/00102/2024 is based on the request of the petitioner, confining his relief to the disposal of the representation dated 30.12.2023, which request was acceded to by the Tribunal. Hence, the petitioner cannot turn around and challenge a judgment and order dated 29.02.2024, which is an order passed on consent as per the request of the petitioner made by his counsel during the course of the argument of the Original Application. If the petitioner is aggrieved at all by the order dated

15.04.2024 which has been passed by respondents in compliance the order dated 29.02.2024 passed in O.A. No.332/00102/2024 then the petitioner has remedy of assailing the same before the Tribunal. (10) The case of the petitioner, while filing successive Original Applications before the Tribunal seeking engagement on the post of ‘Substitutes’ in terms of letter No.E(NG)-11/2008/S.B./S.R./15 dated 17.09.2010 (RBE No.137/ 2010) is primarily based on the judgments passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Kolkata Bench, Kolkata in OA No.350/516/2013 as well as judgment and order dated 22.02.2008 passed in OA No.363/2006/38 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bombay Bench, Mumbai and the order dated 20.04.2009 passed in Writ Petition No.4586 of 2008. The aforesaid judgments have been collectively annexed as Annexure-13 to the writ petition, in which the relevant provisions of letter No.E(NG)-11/2008/S.B./S.R./15 dated 17.09.2010 (RBE No.137/ 2010) have been interpreted with regard to engagement of ‘Substitutes’. (11) A bare perusal of the judgments annexed by the petitioner as Annexure No.13 indicates that the learned Central Administrative 6 WRIT - A No. - 5738 of 2024 Tribunal, Kolkata Bench, Kolkata as well as Mumbai Bench, has taken note of the fact that, while making engagement on the post of ‘Substitutes’, the competent authority concerned adopted pick- and-choose method, which was held to be arbitrary and discriminatory. (12) A close scrutiny of the aforesaid judgments indicates that the facts of those cases are quite distinct and not applicable in the case of the petitioner. The instructions contained in letter No.E(NG)- 11/2008/S.B./S.R./15 dated 17.09.2010 (RBE No.137/ 2010) provide that the ‘Substitutes’ can only be engaged with the prior personal approval of the General Manager in the following circumstances. The instruction No.3 is reproduced hereinbelow :- “3. Circumstance for engagement of “Substitutes”

3.1. Substitutes in erstwhile Group ‘D’ should be engaged with the prior personal approval of the General Manager while those in Group ‘C’ shall require prior approval of the Railway Board. They should be engaged only in the following circumstances :- (i) The process of filing up of vacancies is delayed; (ii) The posts cannot be kept vacant without adversely affecting the railway services.” (13) The order dated 22.12.2023 passed by the competent authority while deciding the representation of the petitioner in compliance the order dated 16.08.2023 passed in O.A. No.332/00290/2018 has precisely stated that the railway administration has not called for any applications from open market candidates, and hence, the applicants of O.A. No. 332/00290/2018 do not come under the purview of the instructions. It also records a finding that no exigencies exist at present, as systematic recruitment procedures are already in place, 7 WRIT - A No. - 5738 of 2024 which provide adequate manpower as and when required. The order dated 22.12.2023 was challenged in O.A. No.332/ 00102/2024, but the relief for quashing it was not pressed, as the relief was confined only to disposal of the representation dated

30.12.2023, as requested by the counsel for the petitioner during the course of hearing of O.A. No.332/00102/2024 and on such request the O.A. was disposed of vide judgment and order dated

29.02.2024. Hence, the findings recorded in the order dated

22.12.2023 stood confirmed, as a challenge to the same was given up by the petitioner at the time of the final hearing of O.A. No. 332/00102/2024. (14) Again, when the representation dated 30.12.2023 was decided by order dated 15.04.2024, a specific finding was given that the railway administration had not called for any applications from open market candidates, and hence, the applicants of this O.A. do not come under the purview of the instructions and no good ground is made out to consider them for engagement as fresh face Substitutes in Group ‘D’ post in Northern Railway. (15) A bare perusal of the reasoning given in the orders dated

15.04.2024 and 22.12.2023, while rejecting the petitioner’s case for engagement on the post of ‘Substitutes’ shows that they are similar. Thus, the petitioner is virtually litigating the same issue repeatedly before the learned Central Administrative Tribunal since filing of his first Original Application in 2016, i.e. O.A. No.114/2016, which was rejected on the ground of delay but subsequently remitted back for decision on merit by the High Court vide judgment and order dated 16.11.2017 passed in Writ Petition No.8105 (S/B) of 2016. (16) The petitioner has not disclosed what transpired in Original Application No.114/2016 after the judgment and order dated 8 WRIT - A No. - 5738 of 2024

16.11.2017. It is also not clear from the pleadings in the writ petition whether such O.A. is still pending or has been finally decided. (17) Another Original Application No.332/03704/2017 was filed by the petitioner along with others which was disposed of on 15.02.2018 with a direction to decide the representation of the petitioner. (18) Thereafter, Original Application No.332/00290/2018 was filed by the petitioner in which also the issue was with regard to engagement on the post of ‘Substitutes’ which was again disposed of at the request of counsel for the petitioner with direction to disposed of the representation of the petitioner. (19) Subsequently, another Original Application No.332/00102/2024 was filed which was disposed of on the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, confining his prayer to disposal of the representation and challenge to the order dated 22.12.2023 rejecting the case of the petitioner for engagement on the post of ‘Substitute’ was not pressed. (20) Now, in the present writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 29.02.2024 passed in O.A. No.332/00102/2024 which was also based on the request of the petitioner for disposal of the representation, without pressing for relief regarding quashing of the order dated 22.12.2023, whereby his claim was rejected. The repeated representations and the directions by the learned Tribunal on the same subject matter, without challenge to the decision once taken by the Department being thrashed out on merits, not only waste the precious time of the Court but also amount to leisure litigation by the petitioner, knocking on the Tribunal’s/Court’s door at his own choice. 9 WRIT - A No. - 5738 of 2024 (21) Be that as it may, this Court is of the view that judgment and order dated 29.02.2024 passed in O.A. No.332/00102/2024 is an order based on the request of the petitioner confining relief to disposal of the representation dated 30.12.2023. Hence, the present writ petition against the order dated 29.02.2024 is not maintainable being passed on the request and consent of the petitioner. The challenge to the order dated 15.04.2024 in the present writ petition is also not maintainable as the earlier order dated 22.12.2023 whereby the claim of the petitioner for engagement on the post of ‘Substitutes’ was rejected is still intact and the reasoning contained in the order dated 15.4.2024 for rejection is same as that in 22.12.2023. Even, otherwise the order dated 15.04.2024 could only have been challenged before the Central Administrative Tribunal and cannot be directly assailed before this Hon’ble Court. (22) Thus, the present writ petition for the facts and reasons discussed hereinabove, is dismissed. No order as to costs. (Amitabh Kumar Rai, J.) (Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra, J.) November 24, 2025 Shubhankar SHUBHANKAR THAKUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

aggrieved by non-consideration of his claim for engagement as ‘Substitute’, petitioner filed Original Application No.114 of 2016 along with other persons before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as “Tribunal”) praying therein for a decision on his application for engagement as ‘Substitute’. (4) The Original Application No.114 of 2016 was dismissed by the Tribunal vide order dated 01.03.2016 on the ground of delay. Thereafter, petitioner along with others filed Writ Petition No.8105 (S/B) of 2016, challenging judgment and order dated

16.11.2017 passed in Original Application No.114 of 2016, which was allowed with a direction to decide the Original Application on merit vide judgment and order dated 16.11.2017. (5) Subsequently, another Original Application, numbered as Diary No.332/03704/2017 was filed by the petitioner along with four others with the following main prayer: 3 WRIT - A No. - 5738 of 2024 “(a) That this Hon’ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to decide the case on merit regarding appointments of the applicants on the post of SUBSTITUTES in accordance with the Railways in accordance with the Railway Board CIRCULAR dated 17.09.2010 contained in Annexure No.2 to this Original Application as COMPILATION-1 as directed by the Hon’ble High Court, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow in the Writ Petition No.8105 (SB) of 2016 on 16.11.2017.” (6) This Original Application was disposed of vide order dated

15.02.2018 with the consent of the parties, with a direction to the respondents, i.e., departmental authorities to decide the representations submitted by the applicants/petitioners. (7) The representations so preferred by the petitioner, after due consideration, were rejected and communicated to the petitioner vide order dated 28.05.2018. The petitioner thereafter filed another Original Application No.332/00290/2018, which was again disposed of vide judgment and order dated 16.08.2023 with the consent of parties, with a direction to respondents/competent authority to decide the representations of the applicants for engagement as ‘Substitutes’ in terms of letter No.E(NG)-11/2008/S.B./S.R./15 dated 17.09.2010 (RBE No.137/ 2010), in light of the judgment passed in O.A. No.363 of 2006 dated 22.02.2008 by CAT, Mumbai Bench, as confirmed by the Hon’ble High Court in Writ Petition No.4586 of 2008 (UOI & Ors vs. Renuka M. Kamble & Ors.) and O.A. No.516 of 2013 dated

21.08.2018 passed by CAT, Kolkata Bench. The competent authority thereafter considered the representations of the petitioner in compliance with the order dated 16.08.2023 passed in O.A. No. 332/00290/2018 and disposed of the representations vide order dated 22.12.2023. The order dated 22.12.2023 was again challenged by the petitioner in O.A. No.332/00102/2024. The O.A. No.332/00102/2024 was disposed of on the request of the 4 WRIT - A No. - 5738 of 2024 petitioner vide order dated 29.02.2024 to decide the representation dated 30.12.2023 preferred by the petitioner. Thus, the O.A. No.332/00102/2024 was disposed of without any finding with regard to the order dated 22.12.2023, which was challenged in the Original Application. In compliance with the order passed in O.A. No.332/00102/2024, the representation dated 30.12.2023 was duly considered and disposed of vide order dated 29.02.2024 rejecting the petitioner’s claim for engagement as ‘Substitutes’ in terms of letter No.E(NG)-11/2008/S.B./S.R./15 dated 17.09.2010 (RBE No.137/ 2010). The petitioner thereafter has filed the present writ petition challenging the order dated 29.02.2024, which is an order passed on consent in O.A. No. 332/00102/2024 as well as the order dated 15.04.2024 whereby the representation of the petitioner in compliance with the judgment and order dated

29.02.2024 was rejected. (8) In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents, specific objections have been taken regarding the maintainability of the present writ petition on the ground that the judgment of the Tribunal dated 29.02.2024 passed in O.A. No. 332/00102/2024 is based on the consent of the parties and hence, cannot be challenged by either of the parties. It has been further contended that the relief was confined to the disposal of the representation dated 30.12.2023, whereas the order dated 22.12.2023 in earlier O.A. No. 332/00290/2018, by which earlier his claim for engagement as ‘Substitutes’ was rejected is still intact and hence, another rejection of the claim vide order dated 15.4.2024 is not open for challenge. Alternately, it has been argued after the passing of the order dated 15.04.2024 on the representation dated

30.12.2023, the petitioner can challenge the order dated

15.04.2024 before the learned Central Administrative Tribunal but the writ petition challenging the order dated 15.04.2024 is not maintainable. 5 WRIT - A No. - 5738 of 2024 (9) Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that the present writ petition filed by the petitioner is completely misconceived, inasmuch as the judgment and order dated 29.02.2024 passed in O.A. No.332/00102/2024 is based on the request of the petitioner, confining his relief to the disposal of the representation dated 30.12.2023, which request was acceded to by the Tribunal. Hence, the petitioner cannot turn around and challenge a judgment and order dated 29.02.2024, which is an order passed on consent as per the request of the petitioner made by his counsel during the course of the argument of the Original Application. If the petitioner is aggrieved at all by the order dated

15.04.2024 which has been passed by respondents in compliance the order dated 29.02.2024 passed in O.A. No.332/00102/2024 then the petitioner has remedy of assailing the same before the Tribunal. (10) The case of the petitioner, while filing successive Original Applications before the Tribunal seeking engagement on the post of ‘Substitutes’ in terms of letter No.E(NG)-11/2008/S.B./S.R./15 dated 17.09.2010 (RBE No.137/ 2010) is primarily based on the judgments passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Kolkata Bench, Kolkata in OA No.350/516/2013 as well as judgment and order dated 22.02.2008 passed in OA No.363/2006/38 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bombay Bench, Mumbai and the order dated 20.04.2009 passed in Writ Petition No.4586 of 2008. The aforesaid judgments have been collectively annexed as Annexure-13 to the writ petition, in which the relevant provisions of letter No.E(NG)-11/2008/S.B./S.R./15 dated 17.09.2010 (RBE No.137/ 2010) have been interpreted with regard to engagement of ‘Substitutes’. (11) A bare perusal of the judgments annexed by the petitioner as Annexure No.13 indicates that the learned Central Administrative 6 WRIT - A No. - 5738 of 2024 Tribunal, Kolkata Bench, Kolkata as well as Mumbai Bench, has taken note of the fact that, while making engagement on the post of ‘Substitutes’, the competent authority concerned adopted pick- and-choose method, which was held to be arbitrary and discriminatory. (12) A close scrutiny of the aforesaid judgments indicates that the facts of those cases are quite distinct and not applicable in the case of the petitioner. The instructions contained in letter No.E(NG)- 11/2008/S.B./S.R./15 dated 17.09.2010 (RBE No.137/ 2010) provide that the ‘Substitutes’ can only be engaged with the prior personal approval of the General Manager in the following circumstances. The instruction No.3 is reproduced hereinbelow :- “3. Circumstance for engagement of “Substitutes”

3.1. Substitutes in erstwhile Group ‘D’ should be engaged with the prior personal approval of the General Manager while those in Group ‘C’ shall require prior approval of the Railway Board. They should be engaged only in the following circumstances :- (i) The process of filing up of vacancies is delayed; (ii) The posts cannot be kept vacant without adversely affecting the railway services.” (13) The order dated 22.12.2023 passed by the competent authority while deciding the representation of the petitioner in compliance the order dated 16.08.2023 passed in O.A. No.332/00290/2018 has precisely stated that the railway administration has not called for any applications from open market candidates, and hence, the applicants of O.A. No. 332/00290/2018 do not come under the purview of the instructions. It also records a finding that no exigencies exist at present, as systematic recruitment procedures are already in place, 7 WRIT - A No. - 5738 of 2024 which provide adequate manpower as and when required. The order dated 22.12.2023 was challenged in O.A. No.332/ 00102/2024, but the relief for quashing it was not pressed, as the relief was confined only to disposal of the representation dated

30.12.2023, as requested by the counsel for the petitioner during the course of hearing of O.A. No.332/00102/2024 and on such request the O.A. was disposed of vide judgment and order dated

29.02.2024. Hence, the findings recorded in the order dated

22.12.2023 stood confirmed, as a challenge to the same was given up by the petitioner at the time of the final hearing of O.A. No. 332/00102/2024. (14) Again, when the representation dated 30.12.2023 was decided by order dated 15.04.2024, a specific finding was given that the railway administration had not called for any applications from open market candidates, and hence, the applicants of this O.A. do not come under the purview of the instructions and no good ground is made out to consider them for engagement as fresh face Substitutes in Group ‘D’ post in Northern Railway. (15) A bare perusal of the reasoning given in the orders dated

15.04.2024 and 22.12.2023, while rejecting the petitioner’s case for engagement on the post of ‘Substitutes’ shows that they are similar. Thus, the petitioner is virtually litigating the same issue repeatedly before the learned Central Administrative Tribunal since filing of his first Original Application in 2016, i.e. O.A. No.114/2016, which was rejected on the ground of delay but subsequently remitted back for decision on merit by the High Court vide judgment and order dated 16.11.2017 passed in Writ Petition No.8105 (S/B) of 2016. (16) The petitioner has not disclosed what transpired in Original Application No.114/2016 after the judgment and order dated 8 WRIT - A No. - 5738 of 2024

16.11.2017. It is also not clear from the pleadings in the writ petition whether such O.A. is still pending or has been finally decided. (17) Another Original Application No.332/03704/2017 was filed by the petitioner along with others which was disposed of on 15.02.2018 with a direction to decide the representation of the petitioner. (18) Thereafter, Original Application No.332/00290/2018 was filed by the petitioner in which also the issue was with regard to engagement on the post of ‘Substitutes’ which was again disposed of at the request of counsel for the petitioner with direction to disposed of the representation of the petitioner. (19) Subsequently, another Original Application No.332/00102/2024 was filed which was disposed of on the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, confining his prayer to disposal of the representation and challenge to the order dated 22.12.2023 rejecting the case of the petitioner for engagement on the post of ‘Substitute’ was not pressed. (20) Now, in the present writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 29.02.2024 passed in O.A. No.332/00102/2024 which was also based on the request of the petitioner for disposal of the representation, without pressing for relief regarding quashing of the order dated 22.12.2023, whereby his claim was rejected. The repeated representations and the directions by the learned Tribunal on the same subject matter, without challenge to the decision once taken by the Department being thrashed out on merits, not only waste the precious time of the Court but also amount to leisure litigation by the petitioner, knocking on the Tribunal’s/Court’s door at his own choice. 9 WRIT - A No. - 5738 of 2024 (21) Be that as it may, this Court is of the view that judgment and order dated 29.02.2024 passed in O.A. No.332/00102/2024 is an order based on the request of the petitioner confining relief to disposal of the representation dated 30.12.2023. Hence, the present writ petition against the order dated 29.02.2024 is not maintainable being passed on the request and consent of the petitioner. The challenge to the order dated 15.04.2024 in the present writ petition is also not maintainable as the earlier order dated 22.12.2023 whereby the claim of the petitioner for engagement on the post of ‘Substitutes’ was rejected is still intact and the reasoning contained in the order dated 15.4.2024 for rejection is same as that in 22.12.2023. Even, otherwise the order dated 15.04.2024 could only have been challenged before the Central Administrative Tribunal and cannot be directly assailed before this Hon’ble Court. (22) Thus, the present writ petition for the facts and reasons discussed hereinabove, is dismissed. No order as to costs. (Amitabh Kumar Rai, J.) (Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra, J.) November 24, 2025 Shubhankar SHUBHANKAR THAKUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench