Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Sachin vs Northern Railway on 5 March, 2012
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI O.A. No. 3463/2011 Order Reserved On:28.02.2012 Pronounced on:05.03.2012 HONBLE MRS. MEERA CHHIBBER, MEMBER (J) HONBLE MR. SHAILENDRA PANDEY, MEMBER (A) Sachin S/o Shri Tilak Raj R/o House No.12/608-A, Rishi Nagar, Batra Colony, Sonepat (Haryana)-131001. Applicant In person. Versus Northern Railway Through its General Manager, Baroda House, Headquarters Office, New Delhi-110001. Respondents By Advocate: Shri A.K. Srivastava. ORDER
Mrs. Meera Chhibber, Member (J) Applicant has sought the following relief:-
(i) Direct the respondent to appoint the applicant immediately as Group D substitute to Apprentice Trained Persons in compliance with Apprentice Scheme & Directions of Apex Court as narrated above. The applicant being top most senior be given preference for appointment in future even if special post has to be created so that already 28 persons are not disturbed for the fault of the respondent.
(ii) The applicant be treated at par with the junior 28 appointees in respect of consequential benefits and back wages. He may be placed above all of them in seniority.
(iii) Pass any other order to undo the miscarriage of justice done to the applicant due to the fault committed by the Respondents and for non consideration of the respondent claim for the job. Any other direction be also kindly issued that this Honble Tribunal considers fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case to meet the ends of justice.
2. The brief facts, as stated by the applicant, are that he had undergone Apprenticeship Training under the Apprenticeship Act, 1961 at Government of India Press, Mayapuri, New Delhi, from 17.2.2004 to 16.2.2006 in the trade of Book Binding and passed the same. He was awarded the National Apprentice Certificate in May, 2006.
3. In July, 2010, he came to know that there were some vacancies in Group D substitute, therefore, he immediately applied for the same. However, 28 persons were selected and appointed to the post of Group D substitute only on the basis of verification of their documents by the Screening Committee on 29.7.2010 in Railways without even considering the applicant, even though he had completed the Apprentice Certificate earlier than those 28 persons. Being aggrieved, he filed representation but no reply was given to him. He had even given a legal notice to the respondents on 27.10.2010, but even that was not responded to, therefore, he had filed OA No. 1963/2011 which was disposed of on 30.5.2011 (page 31 at 32) by giving liberty to the applicant to file a comprehensive representation to the General Manager with a direction to the General Manager to decide the same by passing a reasoned and speaking order within 2 months Liberty was further given to the applicant that in case he is still aggrieved by the order passed by the respondents, it will be open to him to challenge the same on the original side.
4. It is submitted by the applicant, who appeared in person, that pursuant to the directions given by this Tribunal, respondents passed order dated 10.8.2011 (page 16) by stating that they give preference to the Apprentices Trainees trained by the Railways.
5. Applicant has challenged this order, on the ground that it is not open to the respondents to give preference to the Apprentice of Railways by ignoring the Apprentice Trainee, who had done training from the Government of India Press at Mayapuri. He has placed reliance on two judgments, i.e.:-
(i) State of Rajasthan and Another Vs. Dr. Ashok Kumar Gupta reported in AIR 1989 SC 177.
(ii) Union of India Vs. Hargopal reported in AIR 1987 SC 1227.
6. Respondents have opposed this OA. They have stated that the applicant has completed his Act Apprenticeship Training from Training Unit, Government of India Press, Mayapuri, New Delhi, and not in the unit of Northern Railways Printing Press, Shakurbasti. It is also submitted that the Apprentices Act, 1961 was enacted by the Government to regulate and control the training of apprentices in certain designated trades, with the object of getting adequate manpower trained in industrial skills for the developing industries in the country. The obligation under the Act is to provide training only and not to absorb the trained apprentices. However, Course Completed Act Apprentices are sometime engaged as substitutes in Group D posts in Railways in administrative exigencies, subject to their fulfillment of the extant instructions prescribed for such engagements during which candidates trained by the Railways are preferred, therefore, the issue of seniority of the applicant does not arise.
7. They have further stated that the Stores Depot Complex Shakurbasti had not issued any Notification for inviting applications to fill up the vacancies of Group D posts of Khalasi in the Printing Press, Northern Railway, Shakurbasti. The Screening Committee was nominated for verification of documents of only those 28 Course Completed Act Apprentices, who had completed their Act Apprentices Training in the Printing Press, Northern Railway, Shakurbasti. Hence, the question of ignoring the applicant does not arise.
8. They have further stated that no such representation dated 6.8.2010 appears to have been received in this office. The applicant is not eligible for his screening of documents verification, being a Court Completed Act Apprentice of the training unit other than the Printing Press, Northern Railway, Shakurbasti. The question of junior and senior does not arise. They have further stated that there is no question of avoiding responding purposely the applicants application as the same does not appear to be received in the office. The Printing Press/SSB was not supposed to prepare the list of such Act Apprentices who have completed their Apprenticeships training in the training unit other than Northern Railways Printing Press, Shakurbasti. The applicant should have submitted his request to the Training Unit, Government of India Press, Mayapuri, New Delhi, from where he has completed his training of Act Apprenticeship. They have thus prayed that the OA may be dismissed.
9. In rejoinder, applicant has reiterated his stand. He has categorically stated in para 4.(V) that his representation dated 6.8.2010 was duly received in the respondents office as it was stamped also. He has further stated that no classification could have been made on the basis of training undertaken at Railways or at some other Government of India Press as it amounts to hostile discrimination. Since applicant had applied, he ought to have been considered by the respondents.
10. We have heard applicant, who appeared in person and the counsel for the respondents.
11. The relief claimed by the applicant can be divided broadly in 3 parts:
1. Direct the respondents to appoint the applicant immediately as Group D substitute to apprentice trained person in compliance with Apprentice Scheme and direction of Apex Court.
2. The Applicant being topmost senior be given preference for appointment in future, even if special post has to be created so that already appointed 28 persons are not disturbed for the fault of the respondents.
3. Applicant be treated at par with the junior 28 appointees in respect of consequential benefits and back wages. He may be placed above all of them in seniority.
12. As far as 1st relief is concerned, applicant has neither placed on record any common seniority list nor any such Scheme which stipulates that common seniority list is required to be prepared of apprentices who have passed out from different Institutes nor he has placed on record any Notification calling for applications from open market by the Railways, therefore, it is wrong to allege that he is senior-most.
13. Applicant heavily relied on the judgment of Honble Supreme Court in the case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Another Vs. U.P. Parivahan Nigam Shishukha Berozgar Sangh and Others reported in AIR 1995 SC 1115 particularly para 12 to state that since he had done apprenticeship at earlier point of time, he should have been given preference over the Apprentice Trainees of Railways who had passed the Apprenticeship in subsequent years.
14. The above appeal was filed by U.P. State Road Transport Corporation against the judgment of Honble Allahabad High Court whereby directions were given to employ those who had received training in the workshop of the Corporation basically on 2 grounds that Corporation is estopped from denying complainant and that the nation gets the benefit of time, money and energy spend on the trainees. Perusal of the judgment shows that the Ist ground of Honble High Courts judgment was not approved by the Honble Supreme Court by referring to the model contract entered between the Corporation and the trainee and the circulars and it was held as follows:-
For a promise to be enforceable, the same has, however, to be clear and unequivocal. We do not read any such promise in the aforesaid three documents and we, therefore, hold that at the call of promissory estoppel, the direction in question could not have been given by the High Court.
15. On the 2nd point it was noted that the Government of India did desire that preference should be given to the trained apprentices and it is because of this that the State Government stated in its letter No.735/38-6-16 (T)-79 dt.12-11-79 that where such apprentices are available, direct recruitment should not be made. Indeed, the Government of India in its letter dated 23-3-1983 even desired reservation of 50 per cent vacancies for apprentice trainees. It was, in view of the above, observed as follows:-
What is indeed required is to see that the nation gets the benefit of time, money and energy spent on the trainees, which would be so when they are employed in preference to non-trained direct recruits. This would also meet the legitimate expectations of the trainees.
12. In the background of what has been noted above, we state that the following would be kept in mind while dealing with the claim of trainees to get employment after successful completion of their training :-
(1) Other things being equal, a trained apprentice should be given preference over direct recruits.
(2) For this,a trainee would not be required to get his name sponsored by any employment exchange. The decision of this Court in Union of India v.Hargopal, AIR 1987 SC 1227, would permit this.
(3) If age bar would come in the way of the trainee, the same would be relaxed in accordance with what is stated in this regard, if any, in this concerned service rule. If the service rule be silent on this aspect, relaxation to the extent of the period for which the apprentice had undergone training would be given.
(4) The concerned training institute would maintain a list of the persons trained year wise. The persons trained earlier would be treated as senior to the persons trained later. In between the trained apprentices, preference shall be given to those who are senior.
16. Perusal of above would show the direction to maintain list of persons trained year-wise was given to the concerned institute. No direction was given to the Central Government to maintain integrated seniority list of all the Institutes of the apprentices obviously because Honble Supreme Court was dealing with the apprentices of one particular Institute viz. The U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, therefore, the contention of the applicant that he was senior to those apprentices who were appointed as Group D Substitute in Railways is without any merit. Because he had done his apprenticeship from a different Institute, the question of seniority did not arise, therefore, his contention that he is senior to other apprentices has no merit. The same is accordingly rejected.
17. As far as the 2nd part of the relief is concerned, applicant has admittedly not challenged the appointment of 28 apprentices who are stated to have been appointed by Railways. On the contrary, he has stated they should not be disturbed. If they are not to be disturbed, he cannot claim that he should be placed above them specially when they have not been impleaded as parties. Moreover, the Tribunal cannot direct the respondents to create a special post, as claimed by the applicant because that is not within our domain.
18. For the reasons stated above, we find no merit in the case. The same is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
(Shailendra Pandey) (Mrs. Meera Chhibber)
Member (A) Member (J)
Rakesh