Supreme Court upholds termination of trainee for failing prescribed post‑training test; rejects recovery of stipend

A bench of Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi heard an appeal by the Union of India and others against a Patna High Court order that had set aside the termination of a trainee Senior Section Engineer (SSE) and directed reinstatement with all service and monetary benefits. The challenge arose from the respondent’s dismissal after he failed a written examination at the end of prescribed training twice and a subsequent demand for repayment of stipend paid during his second training attempt.

The Supreme Court held that the Railway Master Circular and the appointment conditions required successful completion of the prescribed initial training and a written test before absorption into the substantive post, and that termination for failure to clear the training examination twice was lawful. The Court noted the Master Circular’s prescription that “the initial period of training, wherever prescribed for non‑gazetted direct recruits in various categories of Group ‘C’ posts, is an important pre‑requisite to be successfully completed, before a trainee is absorbed in the post for which he has been recruited.” The Court also recorded the provisional appointment clause that “If your performance in the field of training during probation period is found unsatisfactory, your service is liable to be terminated.” The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "If we go through the above facts, it is clear that the condition of appearing in the written training test for every candidate provisionally appointed as an SSE after clearing the recruitment examination conducted by the RRB is provided in the procedure governing the recruitment of directly recruited non‑gazetted Group ‘C’ posts. ... 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." Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court judgment, dismissed the writ petition, and upheld the termination order. However, the Court rejected the Railways’ recovery claim for the stipend paid during the second training attempt, holding that the payment arose from administrative inadvertence and was not shown to result from misrepresentation or fraud.

Background The respondent had been provisionally appointed as an Apprentice/Trainee SSE after clearing the Railway Recruitment Board written recruitment examination under the Centralized Employment Notice No.02/2014. The recruitment regime was governed by Master Circular No.29 dated 28.06.1991 and the Revised Training Module (RBE No.11/2010) prescribing a 52‑week training for SSEs. The provisional appointment letter warned retention in service was contingent on satisfactory completion of training and passing the requisite test and stated that probation was for two years. After completing 46 of the 52 weeks, the respondent was sent to Zonal Rail Training Institute (ZRTI) for a three‑week General & Subsidiary Rules (G&SR) module and failed the end‑of‑training written examination on 26.12.2017. He was allowed a second attempt without stipend from 06.03.2018 to 26.03.2018 but again failed when results were published on 26.04.2018. The Railway terminated his services by order dated 04.01.2019 and issued a recovery notice dated 26.02.2019 for Rs.1,53,354 paid as stipend during the second attempt.

The respondent challenged the termination before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna, which dismissed his application and found no discrimination or deliberate attempt to make him fail. Review and miscellaneous applications were also dismissed. The respondent then obtained relief from the Patna High Court, which held that no departmental examination was prescribed for conferring permanent status on SSEs and set aside the termination and recovery orders, directing reinstatement and payment of benefits within four months. The Railways obtained special leave, leading to the present appeal.

The Supreme Court examined the Master Circular, the Employment Notice and the provisional appointment terms, relied on precedent distinguishing recruitment from appointment (Prafulla Kumar Swain v. Prakash Chandra Misra), and concluded the Master Circular’s requirement of a written test after initial training applied to directly recruited Group ‘C’ SSEs. The Court therefore found no illegality in termination for failing the prescribed examination twice. It also found that the stipend paid during the second training attempt was disbursed by administrative inadvertence and declined the Railways’ recovery claim in the circumstances. The appeal was allowed in part and disposed of accordingly.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 1091 Case Title: Union of India & Ors. v. Alok Kumar Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Ms. Poornima Singh, Advocate For the Respondent(s): Mr. Amit Sharma, Advocate