‘Not seeking post of MD’: Orissa High Court cites ‘Wren and Martin’ to slam centre’s denial of railway jobs

The bench slams centre for denying Group D railway posts to the applicants who passed the screening test in 1990. (Image enhanced using AI)

“Even going by simple high school English grammar uses by Wren and Martin, we cannot construe the said document as rescinding the scheme, and reasons for this are not far to seek,” the court said on 18 February.

The order added that the claim of the opposite parties is not for the post of the managing director of the railway or such other glorious position; theirs is a menial job, perhaps unskilled as well.

‘Simple high school English grammar’

• The court declines indulgence in the matter broadly agreeing with the reasoning of the tribunal, which has structured the judgment keeping in view a coordinate bench judgment from March 2006.
• The tribunal stated that the state did not comply with the order of the Orissa High Court in 2006, and then the applicants therein filed a plea in 2007.
• When the contempt petition was listed in 2009 for consideration, the applicants filed an affidavit showing that, without issuing any notification giving them an opportunity, the state appointed 114 fresh faces (Group D substitutes) in the year 2009.
• After receipt of the notice in contempt, the respondents appointed 12 persons out of 20, but the cases of the applicants were not considered. Thereafter, the contempt proceeding was dropped.
• The vehement submission of senior panel counsel that the scheme has been rescinded by an order is difficult to agree with.
• The text of the order said, “In terms of the orders of the CAT contained in their judgment of September 1998 general manager of railways considered the vigilance investigation report, submitted in connection with the notification and screening test held in response to the said notification, and has decided to cancel the same and direct cancellation of the same.”
• Even going by simple high school English grammar uses by Wren and Martin, we cannot construe the said document as rescinding the scheme, and the reasons for this are not hard to seek.
• Firstly, the scheme has been promulgated by the railway board and not by the author of the order, whose ranking is much lower in the hierarchy.
• Secondly, there is no textual support for the submission of the kind as to the rescinding of the scheme.
• Thirdly, the Scheme has the trappings of law, and therefore, unless that has been put to an end, in accordance with law, the presumption is that the scheme is still in existence.
• The petitioners shall implement the order of the tribunal within a period of eight weeks.

Tribunal order in favour of applicants

• The matter originated from a CAT dated March 20, 2025, which favoured the applicants in their quest for parity with other employees.
• In 2009, the government appointed 114 fresh Group D substitutes without complying with a 2006 high court mandate.
• The 2006 mandate directed the government to extend specific benefits, related to recruitment as Group-D substitutes, to a group of 20 applicants.
• These 20 applicants approached the high court coordinate bench in 2006, seeking to be considered for appointment as Group D substitutes, following a
• Notification dated August 13, 1990, which initiated a recruitment process, and later the railways decided to cancel the notification and the screening test results based on that vigilance report.
• In 2009, instead of following the 2006 order, the government appointed 114 fresh faces as Group D substitutes in 2009 without issuing a notification or allowing the original applicants to be considered.
• While 12 out of 20 applicants in a related case were eventually extended benefits following contempt proceedings, the current applicants were excluded from those benefits.
• The centre challenged the CAT order in high court.

Government’s stand

• Representing the petitioner government of India, advocate R K Mahapatra argued that the order is liable to be voided on the ground that the scheme itself is no longer in existence, the same having been rescinded by vide order.
• He said that the very intent and policy content of the scheme evolved by the railway board was to accommodate wards of the retirees and those who are going to leave the office on retirement in a short while.
• He further argued that in that position, the order is liable to be set at naught, this aspect having not animated.