Case Background
The petitioner was appointed as a temporary Travelling Inspector of Accounts (TIA) in the North East Frontier Railway through a letter dated 30 December 2004. He joined the Accounts Department as a trainee TIA by office order dated 2 February 2005.
His appointment letter contained clear conditions. Under Clause 3, he was required to pass the All India Railways Appendix-3 (IREM) Departmental Examination for confirmation in the TIA cadre. Clause 4 provided that he had to pass this examination within three years from joining, with the first chance after completion of training. Clause 5 further stated that he would be allowed a maximum of two chances within three years, and failure to qualify would render him liable to discharge from service under a specified Railway Board letter dated 23 August 2001.
Despite these conditions, the petitioner did not clear the Appendix-III (IREM) examination within the prescribed time and chances. Over the years, Railway Board letters modified and relaxed the original condition, permitting him additional attempts beyond what was in his appointment letter.
Ultimately, by order dated 27 May 2016, the Financial Advisor and Chief Accounts Officer, N.F. Railway, terminated his services with effect from 31 May 2016. One month’s pay and allowances in lieu of notice were credited to his bank account under para 301 of the Indian Railway Establishment Code, Volume I.
The petitioner challenged this termination order before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed his Original Application, holding that he had been given the requisite chances, including additional opportunities, but still failed to clear the exam. Aggrieved, he filed the present writ petition before the Patna High Court.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The Division Bench, comprising Hon’ble the Chief Justice and Hon’ble Justice Smt. Anjana Mishra, heard the writ petition. The matter had earlier been listed on 30 April 2019, when the petitioner sought time to clarify his stand regarding Annexure-5 to the writ petition. He later filed a supplementary affidavit dated 4 May 2019, categorically stating that he was not staking his claim on the basis of Annexure-5.
When arguments resumed, the petitioner’s counsel focused on the conditions in Clauses 3, 4 and 5 of the 30 December 2004 appointment letter. He did not dispute that the appointment was temporary and that passing Appendix-III (IREM) was compulsory for confirmation.
The termination order itself, reproduced in the judgment, shows a detailed history. It records that:
- The petitioner was appointed as temporary TIA with a condition to pass Appendix-III (IREM) within three years in two chances, failing which his services were liable to be terminated.
- This condition was subsequently modified by Railway Board letter dated 15 May 2008, stipulating that directly recruited TIAs must pass the examination in two consecutive chances held immediately after joining, failing which their services were liable to be terminated.
- The petitioner availed two chances in the examinations held in 2006 and 2010 but failed both times.
- On his request, he was given one additional chance by Railway Board letter dated 19 January 2011, with a clear warning that failure would render his services liable to termination. He appeared in 2012 and again failed.
- Yet again, by Railway Board letter dated 7 May 2014, he was granted another additional chance, again with a written warning that his services would be terminated if he did not clear the exam. He appeared in the 2015 examination but failed once more.
On these facts, the department terminated his service with effect from 31 May 2016, granting one month’s pay and allowances in lieu of notice.
Before the High Court, the petitioner’s main argument was one of fairness and timing. He contended that:
- By the time his services were terminated, he had already put in about 12 years of service and had become overage, making it difficult for him to seek alternative employment.
- The chances to appear in the exam were not given within the three-year window originally prescribed. According to him, allowing chances well beyond three years and then terminating him after such a long period was unfair and “militated against” the respondents.
- The amendment regarding examinations to be availed within three years, which came into effect on 2 February 2005, was prospective and could not be applied to his case, as his appointment was of 2004.
The Court carefully considered these submissions. It first noted that the petitioner had been granted “too wide an indulgence” by the Railway authorities. Under the original appointment letter, he was entitled only to two chances within three years. However, he was not only given these two chances but also two further additional chances under later Railway Board circulars.
The Bench observed that this indulgence spread over 12 years, which went beyond both the terms of the appointment letter and the subsequent amended circulars. The petitioner never challenged the terms and conditions of his appointment at any earlier stage. Those terms remained binding upon him throughout his service.
The Court rejected the argument that the amendment or the timing of chances made the termination unjust. It reasoned that if the conditions of appointment were taken as applicable, the petitioner had no legal grievance. Instead, he had benefitted from a lenient approach by the department, which allowed him to continue and repeatedly attempt the exam far beyond what the rules required.
The judges used a striking metaphor to describe his position: the petitioner had been “sailing in a boat without a rudder.” He had no enforceable right to continue without passing the examination, whether under the original appointment letter or under the amended circulars.
The Bench emphasised that the petitioner had failed four times. Having repeatedly availed the opportunities given at the discretion of the department, he could not now challenge the very continuation which arose from that benevolence. The Court went further to say that this indulgent approach was unjust to others waiting in the queue for such posts. Keeping the petitioner in service for 12 years without clearing the mandatory exam was, in the Court’s words, “itself a negation of the Rules.”
The Court also considered the contention based on sympathy. Counsel for the petitioner urged that another chance should be granted in view of his long service. The Bench firmly declined this request. It held that giving an additional chance was entirely within the domain of the department. For the Court to direct another chance would amount to bending the rules for the convenience of a single employee, which would violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, dealing with equality and equal opportunity in public employment.
The Court clarified that continuation in service for 12 years did not create a right of “legitimate expectation” for permanent retention in the post. The mere passage of time, when the basic condition of passing the exam remained unmet, did not convert the department’s indulgence into a legal entitlement.
In the end, the Bench concluded that there was no merit in the writ petition. The reasons were clear: the petitioner failed to pass the mandatory examination despite four attempts; his long continuation was purely due to departmental leniency; and no violation of constitutional or service rules was shown. Accordingly, the writ petition was rejected, and the termination order stood confirmed.
Why This Judgment Matters
This decision of the Patna High Court is important for government and public sector employees whose appointments are subject to passing departmental or qualifying examinations. It makes clear that:
If the appointment letter states that clearing a particular exam is necessary for confirmation or continuation, employees cannot ignore this requirement and hope that long years of service will save them later. Even if the department allows them to continue and grants extra chances, this does not become a legal right.
The judgment also protects fairness for other candidates. The Court pointed out that letting one employee continue for 12 years without passing the exam was unfair to those “waiting in the queue” who may have cleared the necessary qualifications. Thus, the rules cannot be bent for one person at the cost of others.
For workers and job-seekers, the lesson is practical: conditions in appointment letters and service rules must be taken seriously. Exams marked as “mandatory” are not mere formalities. Failure to clear them, even after many years of service, can lead to termination which the courts may uphold.
Legal Issues and Answers
-
Issue: Whether a railway employee who failed the mandatory Appendix-III (IREM) departmental examination four times, but was allowed to serve for about 12 years, had a right to continue in service or seek further chances.
Answer: No. The Patna High Court held that the appointment terms clearly required passing the exam within limited chances. Extra chances were mere indulgence. Long continuation did not create a right or legitimate expectation, and directing another chance would breach equality under Articles 14 and 16. -
Issue: Whether the timing of amendments to the Railway Board’s circulars regarding the examination, or delay in giving chances, made the termination order illegal.
Answer: No. The Court found that, whatever the amendments, the petitioner was bound by the original appointment conditions and had in fact been granted more chances than those conditions or the amended circulars required. Hence, the termination was justified.
Cases Cited by the Court
- No other judicial decisions or precedents are cited or relied upon in the extracted judgment text.
Case Details
Case Number: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 9588 of 2019
Case Title: Ashish Ranjan v. Union of India & Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble the Chief Justice Amreshwar Pratap Sahi and Hon’ble Justice Smt. Anjana Mishra
Citation: 2019(3) PLJR 113
Advocates: For the petitioner – Mr. Shailendra Kumar, Advocate. For the respondents – Mr. S. D. Sanjay, Additional Solicitor General; Mr. Ramadhar Shekhar, Addl. Standing Counsel (Railway); Mr. S. K. Ravi, Advocate.
Nature of the Case: Writ petition under civil writ jurisdiction challenging termination of service after failure in departmental examination, arising out of dismissal of an Original Application by the Central Administrative Tribunal.
Link to the Judgment: Click here to access the official Patna High Court judgment
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about
how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar,
you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
