No Illegality In Terminating Services When Employee Failed To Clear G&SR Training Twice: Supreme Court Upholds Termination Order

The Supreme Court has upheld the termination order on the ground that there is no illegality in terminating services when the employee failed to clear G&SR (General and Subsidiary Rules) training twice.

The Court was hearing a Civil Appeal filed against the Judgment of the Patna High Court, which allowed a Writ Petition of the employee.

The two-Judge Bench of Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Vijay Bishnoi observed, “… we are of the firm view that when the Respondent had failed to clear the G&SR training twice and as such, had failed to successfully complete the 52 week initial training programme, the Appellants have not committed any illegality in terminating the services of the Respondent, pursuant to the procedure prescribed for the purpose of permanent appointment of SSEs.”

The Bench said that the counsel for the Appellants has rightly pointed out that departmental examinations are conducted only for the purpose of promotions and not for the purpose of recruitment/appointment.

ASG Aishwarya Bhati and Advocate Poornima Singh represented the Appellants while AOR Amit Sharma represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

A Centralized Employment Notice was issued by the Railway Recruitment Board (RRB), inviting applications for the post of Senior Section Engineer (SSE) by which the suitable candidates were to be recruited by way of a written examination conducted by the RRB. In the advertisement, it was specifically mentioned that the selected candidates will have to undergo training wherever prescribed for the posts. Subsequently, the Respondent appeared in the written exam along with other candidates and on being successful, he was offered provisional appointment in Group ‘C’ category for the post of Apprentice/Trainee SSE (Electrical/Drawing) against the direct recruitment quota and was allotted to the Construction Organization in the East Central Railway, Mahendrughat, Patna. A letter was issued to him clarifying that he would be eligible for retention of service subject to successful completion of training.

He was then sent for the training and he failed in the exam. The other two candidates cleared the exam and the Respondent being an OBC category trainee, requested the Chief Administrative Officer (Construction) to allow him to undertake a second attempt to clear the G&SR training without payment of stipend. However, yet again he failed in the same and consequently, his services were terminated. He approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), which rejected his allegations of discrimination. He then went to the High Court but his case was dismissed as withdrawn. Thereafter, he filed a Review Application before CAT, which was also dismissed. This was assailed before the High Court and the Appellants were directed to extend all service and monetary benefits which were due to the Respondent. Being aggrieved, the Appellants were before the Apex Court.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court after hearing the contentions of the counsel, noted, “When the procedure for recruitment of SSEs issued through the Master Circular specifically provides for a written test after completion of the initial training period, the High Court has erred in recording a finding that no departmental examination is prescribed for the purpose of conferring permanent status against the post of SSE.”

The Court added that the provisional appointment of the Respondent as a Trainee SSE was only a recruitment and his permanent appointment in service on the post of an SSE was subject to the successful completion of his training.

“It is also to be noted that although while sending the Respondent for the second time to clear the G&SR training, it was clarified that he would not be entitled to any stipend, yet as per the Appellants, the same was paid to the Respondent due to administrative inadvertence”, it further said.

The Court also observed that it is not the case of the Appellants that the stipend amount was paid to the Respondent due to misrepresentation or fraud, and therefore, the said demand raised by the Appellants against the Respondent for the recovery of the stipend cannot be justified.

Accordingly, the Apex Court disposed of the Appeal, set aside the High Court’s Judgment, and rejected the demand of the Appellants.

Cause Title- Union of India & Ors. v. Alok Kumar (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1091)

Appearance:

Appellants: ASG Aishwarya Bhati, AOR Amrish Kumar, Advocates Poornima Singh, and Digvijay Dam.

Respondent: AOR Amit Sharma, Advocates Ravi Kumar, and Kaushlednra Narayan.

Click here to read/download the Judgment