'Clearing Training Exams Mandatory for Railway Job Confirmation': SC Upholds Termination of Recruit

The Supreme Court has held that being “recruited” for a government job does not automatically mean you are permanently appointed. Instead, candidates must successfully complete training and pass the required tests before securing their position.

A bench of Justices J K Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi gave this clarification while upholding the termination of a man who was selected as a senior section engineer (SSE) in the Railways but failed to clear the examination held after his training, not once, but twice.

Court allowed the appeal filed by the Union government against the Patna High Court's judgment of February 6, 2023. 

"When the procedure for recruitment of SSEs (senior section engineers) 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 bench said. 

Otherwise also, the bench said, it would be difficult to comprehend how, in the absence of any test at the end of the initial training period, it can be possible to ascertain whether a candidate has acquired sufficient training or not.

Court noted the Master Circular governing the recruitment to non gazetted Group ‘C’ posts in the Railways clearly provides that completion of the initial period of training for the non gazetted direct recruits in various categories of Group ‘C’ posts is an important prerequisite for the absorption of a trainee in the post for which he/she has been recruited. 

The bench pointed out that it further provides that at the end of the initial training of a directly recruited non-gazetted trainee, there must be a written test, and the recruited candidates should be warned that their retention will be dependent on them successfully completing the training and passing the requisite test.

Court noted the Employment Notice, under which the respondent had applied, clearly provided that the selected candidates would have to undergo training wherever it had been prescribed for the concerned post. Further, even in the provisional appointment letter issued to the respondent, it was specifically stipulated that if his performance in the field of training during probation was found unsatisfactory, his services were liable to be terminated.  

Court also found that the respondent was not the only one sent for the training; rather, several other candidates were also sent for the said training both the first time and the second time. 

"All candidates except the respondent passed the examination when the respondent appeared for the first time in the said training. When the respondent appeared in the examination after availing the second chance to undergo the training, as many as 34 trainees appeared along with the respondent and out of which, 31 cleared the examination except the respondent and two other trainees,'' the bench said.

Court did not find any merit in the submission of the counsel for the respondent that the Master Circular was not applicable in the case of recruitment to the post of an SSE.  

The bench relied upon Prafulla Kumar Swain v. Prakash Chandra Misra (1993), which has defined the meaning of the words “recruitment” and “appointment”. The judgment in Prafulla Kumar Swain has also been followed by the apex court in Ashok Ram Parhad v. State of Maharashtra (2023), the bench highlighted.

Court thus held, "We are of the firm view that when the respondent had failed to clear the 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".

Resultantly, court set aside the impugned judgment passed by the High Court and dismissed the writ petition. The bench, however, set aside the demand raised by the appellants against the respondent for the recovery of the stipend, saying it could not be justified.

The respondent was offered the provisional appointment on September 14, 2016. After the training, an examination was conducted, and as per the result, published on December 26, 2017, the respondent had failed to clear the said examination. On his request, he was allowed to undergo training again. As per the result published on April 26, 2018, the respondent yet again failed to clear the examination held at the end of the training course.

Case Title: Union of India & Ors Vs Alok Kumar

Judgment Date: September 9, 2025

Bench: Justices J K Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi