Training Is Not a Mere Formality — Failure to Clear Prescribed Exams Justifies Termination: Supreme Court Upholds Railway's Right to Deny Appointment to Unqualified Trainees

“Recruitment Is Not Appointment, and Training Is Not a Ritual” — On 9th September 2025, the Supreme Court of India, in a judgment delivered by a bench comprising Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi, decisively upheld the Union of India’s termination of a trainee Senior Section Engineer (SSE). The Court ruled that successful completion of all components of prescribed training, including passing the final examination, is a mandatory condition for absorption into service — and failure in the exam justifies non-appointment.

The Court ruled that “training is not just a symbolic exercise but a qualifying phase, and unless the candidate clears the prescribed written test, permanent absorption cannot follow.”

“There Can Be No Appointment Without Qualification; Mere Recruitment Does Not Create a Right to Employment”

Alok Kumar was provisionally appointed as a trainee SSE (Electrical/Drawing) in 2016 through the Railway Recruitment Board (RRB), Muzaffarpur, under Centralized Employment Notice No.02/2014. His appointment letter categorically warned that:

“If your performance in the field of training during probation period is found unsatisfactory, your service is liable to be terminated.”

The SSE training comprised 52 weeks and included a mandatory General and Subsidiary Rules (G&SR) module. Alok Kumar completed 46 weeks of training but failed to clear the G&SR examination on two consecutive occasions, once in 2017 and again in 2018. Following the second failure, his services were terminated on 04.01.2019, and a stipend refund was demanded for the second training session.

He challenged the termination before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna, which dismissed his claim. However, the Patna High Court, in a judgment dated 06.02.2023, overturned the CAT’s order, holding that there was no departmental examination prescribed for permanent status and reinstated Alok Kumar with all service and monetary benefits.

“Passing of Written Test Is an Inseparable Component of Training” — Supreme Court Reverses High Court’s Finding

The Supreme Court strongly disagreed with the High Court's interpretation, ruling:

“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.”

The Court clarified that what the High Court mistakenly called a "departmental examination" was, in fact, a “training examination” mandated under Clause 3 of the Master Circular No. 29 of 1991, which provides:

“The qualifying examination at the end of initial training of directly recruited non-gazetted staff must necessarily be a written test.”

Furthermore, Clause 3.1 makes it explicitly clear: “The candidates should be warned at the time of their recruitment that their retention in service will be dependent on their successfully completing the training and passing the requisite test.”

“Appointment Follows Qualification, Not Vice Versa” — Court Emphasizes the Distinction Between Recruitment and Appointment

Reinforcing a constitutional distinction, the Court cited Prafulla Kumar Swain v. Prakash Chandra Misra: “The term ‘recruitment’ connotes enlistment, acceptance, selection or approval for appointment. This is not actual appointment. In contradistinction, ‘appointment’ means an actual act of posting a person to a particular office.”

The Court emphasized that Alok Kumar’s status remained that of a provisional recruit, and he had no right to be permanently appointed without fulfilling the training and examination requirements.

“Equality Demands Parity in Performance, Not Leniency in Standards” — No Discrimination in G&SR Exam Requirement

Alok Kumar alleged discrimination by pointing out that some peers were permanently posted without undergoing G&SR training. The Court dismissed this argument as factually incorrect and misleading.

“From the information supplied under RTI, it is more than clear that all the three trainees had completed the 52-week training period before being permanently appointed.”

It further stated that Alok Kumar was not singled out, and many others were also sent for the G&SR module — all of whom cleared it, except him and two others.

“Administrative Error Cannot Justify Financial Recovery in Absence of Fraud” — Court Rejects Stipend Refund Demand

While the Railways had demanded recovery of ₹1,53,354 paid to Alok Kumar during his second training, the Court took a humanitarian view:

“It is not the case of the Appellants that the stipend amount was paid due to misrepresentation or fraud... in the peculiar circumstances of this case, the said demand for recovery of the stipend cannot be justified.”

Accordingly, the recovery order was quashed, although the termination was upheld.

The Supreme Court restored the Union Government’s authority to enforce discipline and standards in public appointments, firmly stating that failure to meet qualification benchmarks — especially those expressly laid down in recruitment policy — lawfully invites termination. The judgment sets a significant precedent in clarifying the legal position that recruitment alone does not grant a vested right to appointment.

The Court underscored that: “In the absence of any test at the end of the initial training period, it cannot be possible to ascertain whether a candidate has acquired sufficient training or not.”

Thus, the High Court’s judgment was set aside, and writ petition was dismissed.

Date of Decision: 09th September 2025