Summary and Analysis of Union of India & Ors vs Alok Kumar SLP No 17844 of 2023

1. Heading of the Judgment

Case Name: Union of India & Ors. vs Alok Kumar
Citation: 2025 INSC (Non-Reportable) [Civil Appeal arising from SLP (C) No. 17844 of 2023]
Court: Supreme Court of India
Judges: Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vijay Bishnoi (Authored by Vijay Bishnoi, J.)
Nature of Case: Civil Appeal challenging a High Court order that had set aside the termination of a railway employee.

2. Related Laws and Sections

The judgment interprets the service conditions and rules governing the recruitment of non-gazetted staff in the Indian Railways. The key documents and legal principles involved are:

• Master Circular No. 29 dated 28.06.1991: The primary policy governing the recruitment and training of Group ‘C’ non-gazetted posts in the Railways.

• Indian Railway Establishment Manual, 1989: Provides definitions for terms like "apprentice/trainee" and "direct recruitment," and outlines training durations.

• Constitution of India - Articles 14 & 16: Pertain to the right to equality and equality of opportunity in public employment, which were invoked by the employee against his termination.

• Precedents on Recruitment vs. Appointment: The judgment relies on definitions from Prafulla Kumar Swain v. Prakash Chandra Misra (1993) and Ashok Ram Parhad v. State of Maharashtra (2023) to distinguish between "recruitment" (initial selection) and "appointment" (final posting after fulfilling all conditions).

3. Basic Judgment Details

• Appellants (Management): Union of India & Ors. (The Indian Railways)

• Respondent (Employee): Alok Kumar

• Subject of Dispute: The legality of terminating the services of a Senior Section Engineer (SSE) trainee for repeatedly failing a mandatory training examination.

• Lower Authorities' Decisions:
  Railway Authorities: Terminated the respondent's service after he failed the General and Subsidiary Rules (G&SR) training exam twice.
  Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Patna: Upheld the termination as legal and valid.
  High Court of Patna: Allowed the employee's writ petition, set aside the termination, and ordered his reinstatement with all benefits, ruling that no "departmental examination" was prescribed for the post.

• Supreme Court's Decision: Allowed the appeal filed by the Railways. Set aside the High Court's order and restored the termination, ruling it was legal. However, it quashed the order for recovery of the stipend paid to the employee.

4. Explanation of the Judgment

Core Legal Issue

The central question was whether the Railways was legally justified in terminating a trainee SSE for failing to clear a compulsory training examination, and whether the High Court was correct in interfering with this decision.

Background Facts

The respondent, Alok Kumar, was provisionally appointed as a Trainee Senior Section Engineer (SSE) in the Railways in 2016. His appointment letter and the governing Master Circular clearly stated that:

• His retention in service was subject to the successful completion of a 52-week training program.

• A qualifying written examination at the end of the training was mandatory.

• His services were liable to be terminated if his performance during probation was unsatisfactory.

The respondent completed 46 weeks of his field training. He was then sent for a 3-week G&SR training course at a training institute, which ended with a written exam. He failed this exam twice—first in December 2017 and again in April 2018, despite being given a second chance as per rules (without stipend). Consequently, his services were terminated in January 2019.

He challenged the termination before the CAT, alleging discrimination, arguing that four other trainees were made permanent without undergoing this specific G&SR training. The CAT dismissed his plea. The Patna High Court, however, accepted his argument, misinterpreted the G&SR exam as a "departmental examination" (meant for promotions), and ordered his reinstatement. The Railways appealed this decision to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court's Analysis and Reasoning

The Supreme Court allowed the Railways' appeal and set aside the High Court's order, providing a clear and logical analysis:

1. Error by the High Court: The Supreme Court identified the High Court's fundamental error: it confused a "training examination" with a "departmental examination." The Court clarified:
   A "training examination" is conducted at the end of a training program to assess a direct recruit's suitability for confirmation. This is governed by the Master Circular.
   A "departmental examination" is conducted for existing employees seeking promotion. The G&SR test was the former, not the latter.

2. Clear Terms and Conditions: The Court emphasized that the requirement to pass the training exam was explicitly stated in three key documents:
   The Master Circular of 1991.
   The Employment Notice (advertisement) for the post.
   The respondent's own provisional appointment letter.
   The respondent had accepted these terms when he joined the service.

3. No Discrimination: The Court rejected the allegation of discrimination. It noted:
   The respondent was not singled out; other trainees were also sent for the G&SR training.
   The RTI information revealed that the four other trainees he cited had, in fact, completed their full 52-week training (which included other modules) before being confirmed. They were not sent for the specific G&SR module because they had already fulfilled their training requirements through other means.

4. Recruitment vs. Appointment: Relying on precedent, the Court drew a crucial distinction. The respondent's provisional posting was a "recruitment" (an initial selection). Final "appointment" was contingent upon him fulfilling all conditions, including passing the training exam. Since he failed to do so, he had no vested right to be appointed.

5. Termination was Legal: The Court held that the termination was a straightforward consequence of the respondent's failure to meet a mandatory condition of service. It was not arbitrary or violative of Articles 14 or 16 of the Constitution.

6. Stipend Recovery Quashed: While upholding the termination, the Court showed compassion regarding the recovery of the stipend paid during his second training attempt. Since the payment was made due to an "administrative inadvertence" (a mistake by the Railways) and not due to any fraud by the respondent, the Court quashed the recovery order, deeming it unjust.

Supreme Court's Directions and Conclusion

The Supreme Court held that the High Court committed a legal error by misinterpreting the nature of the examination and interfering with the Railways' lawful decision.

Final Decision: The Supreme Court:

• Allowed the appeal filed by the Union of India (Railways).

• Set aside the impugned judgment of the Patna High Court.

• Restored the order of the CAT, Patna, thereby upholding the legality of the respondent's termination.

• Quashed the Railways' order demanding the recovery of the stipend amount from the respondent.