Central Administrative Tribunal - Kolkata
Shyamal Hazra vs Government Of India Press on 6 December, 2024
1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
KOLKATA BENCH
KOLKATA
Date : 06.12.2024
Present : Hon'ble Mrs. Urmita Datta Sen, Judicial Member
Hon'ble Mr. Anindo Majumdar, Administrative Member
O.A.No.350/25/2019 : SRI SHYAMAL HAZRA
O.A.No.350/27/2019 : SRI SOUMITRA MONDAL
O.A.No.350/33/2019 : SRI PINTU MALIK
O.A.No.350/34/2019 : SRI ABHI PAUL
O.A.No.350/37/2019 : SRI DEBASISH PAUL
............Applicants
-Versus -
1. Union of India, service through the Secretary,
Ministry of Urban Development, Govt. of India, Nirman
Bhawan, New Delhi-110 001.
2. The Director of Printing, Directorate of Printing,
Govt. of India, "B" Wing, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi
110 001.
3. The Deputy Director of Printing, Govt. of India,
Ministry of Urban Development, Directorate of Printing,
"B" Wing, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi- 110 001.
4. The Manager, Govt. of India Press,
(Publication/Forms Wings), Santragachi, Jagachha,
District Howrah.
5. The Manager, Govt. of India Press, (Publication/Forms
Wings), Temple Street, Kolkata.
........Respondents
For the applicant : Mr. M.K. Bandyopadhyay, counsel
For the respondents : Mr. S. Paul, counsel (All O.As except O.A.No.34/2019)
Mr. K. Prasad, counsel (in O.A.No.350/34/2019)
Digitally signed by SOMA BANDYOPADHYAY
SOMA DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=6794, OID.2.5.4.65=
133596418541584061RzFJVlZ8C5fhN1, Phone=
248a2038712d0767cdf2a9a674eb5cc32aa060bb09e
b992ecb181b7a052a187d, PostalCode=700114, S=
BANDYOPA
West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER=
f048dc9a9c57abdc8eb507bb0fbc388d2dfdb37eb370
45900c3c33b439ae01bc, CN=SOMA
BANDYOPADHYAY
Reason: I am the author of this document
DHYAY Location:
Date: 2024.12.23 14:11:26+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0
2
ORDER
Urmita Datta Sen, Judicial Member As the issue involved are same and identical and the applicants have prayed for identical reliefs in these matters, all the O.As are taken up for analogous hearing for disposal of the same by a common order. For the sake of convenience the facts are delineated from O.A.No.350/25/2019.
2. In O.A.No.350/25/2019, the applicants have prayed for the following reliefs:-
"a) For an order quashing and/or setting aside the order dated 24th July,2014 and 14th September, 2018 with all consequential benefits;
b) For an order directing the respondent to consider the case of the applicant for appointment to the post of Assistant Binder along with the applicants in O.A.No.969 of 2007, O.A.No.988 of 2007, O.A.No.989 of 2007 and O.A.No.992 of 2007;
c) For an order directing the respondent to give benefit of the judgment dated 05.12.2007 passed in O.A.No.969 of 2007, O.A.No.988 of 2007, O.A.No.989 of 2007 and O.A.No.992 of 2007 to present applicants also;
d) Any other order or further order or order as deem fit and proper to this Hon'ble Tribunal;
e) To produce connected Departmental Record at the time of Hearing."
3. Facts of the case in brief as stated by the applicants are as follows:-
(a) That, the applicant had passed All India Trade Test in the trade of "Book Binder" under the Apprenticeship Act, 1961 (52 of 1961) under Apprenticeship Rule, 1992 conducted by NCVT and awarded National Apprenticeship Certificate. Pursuant to an advertisement published in the Employment News dated 17-23rd November, 2007 by the Government of India, Ministry of Urban Development, Office of Digitally signed by SOMA BANDYOPADHYAY SOMA DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=6794, OID.2.5.4.65= 133596418541584061RzFJVlZ8C5fhN1, Phone= 248a2038712d0767cdf2a9a674eb5cc32aa060bb09e b992ecb181b7a052a187d, PostalCode=700114, S= BANDYOPA West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER= f048dc9a9c57abdc8eb507bb0fbc388d2dfdb37eb370 45900c3c33b439ae01bc, CN=SOMA BANDYOPADHYAY Reason: I am the author of this document DHYAY Location:
Date: 2024.12.23 14:11:26+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 3 the Manager, Government of India Press, Santragachi, Howrah, for recruitment of Assistant Binder along with other categories, he had applied for the post of Assistant Binder. According to the applicant, the candidates who were awarded Apprenticeship Certificate were stated to be given preference in the matter of employment. However, some empanelled candidates from the Apprenticeship list were recruited to those posts but the applicant was not considered for the post on the ground of a ban/suspension on recruitment process.
(b) Some of the similarly situated persons who were not given appointment as per the aforesaid notification, had filed O.As before this Tribunal which were finally disposed of on 05.12.2007 by a common order giving liberty to those applicants to make applications to the authorities as per the said notification within the due date and on receipt of such applications the respondents were directed to consider their case if qualification and age relaxation were permissible under the rules. The applicant in the present case could not approach this Tribunal along with other similarly placed persons at that time due to his economic/financial hardship.
(c) Having learnt that the respondents were going to fill up those vacancies very shortly, the applicant had approached this Tribunal by filing O.A.No.439 of 2013 which was disposed of at the stage of admission on 17.05.2013 with a direction upon the applicant to make a comprehensive representation to the concerned respondents showing how he was similarly circumstanced with the applicants in the O.A.No.969/2007, O.A.No.988/2007, O.A.No.989/2007 and Digitally signed by SOMA BANDYOPADHYAY SOMA DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=6794, OID.2.5.4.65= 133596418541584061RzFJVlZ8C5fhN1, Phone= 248a2038712d0767cdf2a9a674eb5cc32aa060bb09e b992ecb181b7a052a187d, PostalCode=700114, S= BANDYOPA West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER= f048dc9a9c57abdc8eb507bb0fbc388d2dfdb37eb370 45900c3c33b439ae01bc, CN=SOMA BANDYOPADHYAY Reason: I am the author of this document DHYAY Location:
Date: 2024.12.23 14:11:26+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 4 O.A.No.992 of 2007 and the respondents were directed to dispose of the same in the light of the order dated 05.12.2007 passed in the aforementioned O.As.
(d) Pursuant to the aforesaid order of the Tribunal dated 17.05.2013, the applicant made a comprehensive representation to the authority concerned which was rejected vide order dated 24.07.2014 (Annexure A/6) stating that even after getting age relaxation of 2 and a half years, he could not be considered for the post of Assistant Binder as per the notification referred to by the applicant. Being aggrieved by the said speaking order the applicant along with others had filed a contempt petition before this Tribunal i.e. C.P.350/209/2014 which was dropped on 28.09.2018 with liberty to the applicants to file separate O.As challenging the speaking order.
Before that, on 14.09.2018 (Annexure A/7) the respondents issued another speaking order stating that Shri Shyamal Hazra could not be considered for appointment even after getting age relaxation of 7 and a half years as on 17.08.2018. Hence, this O.A.
4. The respondents have filed their written statement refuting the claim of the applicant wherein they have stated as follows:-
(a) The matter was carefully considered by the authorities as per orders of this Tribunal and the question of educational qualification and relaxation of age in view of the ban on appointment have been taken into account. Thereafter a speaking order was issued on 24.07.2018 stating that even after giving relaxation of age for 2 and a half years, the applicant had crossed the maximum age limit, as a Digitally signed by SOMA BANDYOPADHYAY SOMA DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=6794, OID.2.5.4.65= 133596418541584061RzFJVlZ8C5fhN1, Phone= 248a2038712d0767cdf2a9a674eb5cc32aa060bb09e b992ecb181b7a052a187d, PostalCode=700114, S= BANDYOPA West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER= f048dc9a9c57abdc8eb507bb0fbc388d2dfdb37eb370 45900c3c33b439ae01bc, CN=SOMA BANDYOPADHYAY Reason: I am the author of this document DHYAY Location:
Date: 2024.12.23 14:11:26+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 5 result of which his candidature could not be considered for appointment.
(b) The applicant had filed a C.P No.350/209/2014 before this Tribunal which was dropped vide order dated 20.07.2018 wherein it was made clear that this Tribunal could not go into the merit of the O.A. to determine whether the age relaxation was granted in accordance with the rules or not and liberty was given to the applicant along with others to file appropriate O.As to challenge the speaking order. This Tribunal has also directed to hand over speaking orders to all the applicants separately.
(c ) Another speaking order dated 14.09.2018 was issued by the respondents wherein it has been stated that the applicant, Shri Shyamal Hazra and 21 others were awarded National Apprentices Certificate for which minimum qualification was 8th standard pass whereas, he applied for the post of Assistant Binder against the notification published in the Employment News dated 17-23rd November, 2007 wherein the minimum educational qualification for the said post is Matriculation. In the said order, it is further stated that in addition to the period of apprenticeship training undergone, an additional period of delay involved in the declaration of trade test result i.e. maximum 6 months was also deducted from the age of the applicant for the purpose of determining upper age limit, but even after getting age relaxation of 7 and a half years, he had crossed the maximum age limit as on 17.08.2018. It has also been stated in the said order that no recruitment was made on any post as per the Digitally signed by SOMA BANDYOPADHYAY SOMA DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=6794, OID.2.5.4.65= 133596418541584061RzFJVlZ8C5fhN1, Phone= 248a2038712d0767cdf2a9a674eb5cc32aa060bb09e b992ecb181b7a052a187d, PostalCode=700114, S= BANDYOPA West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER= f048dc9a9c57abdc8eb507bb0fbc388d2dfdb37eb370 45900c3c33b439ae01bc, CN=SOMA BANDYOPADHYAY Reason: I am the author of this document DHYAY Location:
Date: 2024.12.23 14:11:26+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 6 notification referred to by the applicant. Accordingly the applicant's case was rejected.
5. Learned Counsel for the applicant has also filed a rejoinder reiterating the same as stated in the O.A.
6. At hearing, Learned Counsel for the applicants has submitted that the respondents have rejected the candidature of the applicants for the posts of Assistant Binder(in O.A.350/25/2019) and Book Binder(in other O.As) in an arbitrary manner only on the ground that they have crossed the maximum age limit. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the applicants were well within the age limit as per recruitment Rule of 2003 as on the date of issuance of the notification published in the Employment News dated 17-23rd November,2007, therefore, they should be given appointment. Learned Counsel for the applicants have produced before us an order passed by the other bench of this Tribunal on similar issue dated 30.07.2024 in O.A.No.350/35/2019 (Sri Biman Banerjee Vs. Union of India & Others) wherein direction was issued in favour of the applicant. Accordingly, Learned Counsel has prayed for similar order in these cases too.
7. Learned Counsel for the respondents has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of UP State Roads Transport Corporation and Another Vs. U.P. Parivahana Nigam Shikshukh Berozgar Sangh, wherein aim and object of Apprenticeship Act were broadly discussed and certain guidelines regarding claims of successful trainees to get employment were mentioned. As per the said guidelines, 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 the concerned service rule and if the service rule is silent on this aspect, relaxation for the period when the apprentice had undergone training would be given. It was also stated Digitally signed by SOMA BANDYOPADHYAY SOMA DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=6794, OID.2.5.4.65= 133596418541584061RzFJVlZ8C5fhN1, Phone= 248a2038712d0767cdf2a9a674eb5cc32aa060bb09e b992ecb181b7a052a187d, PostalCode=700114, S= BANDYOPA West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER= f048dc9a9c57abdc8eb507bb0fbc388d2dfdb37eb370 45900c3c33b439ae01bc, CN=SOMA BANDYOPADHYAY Reason: I am the author of this document DHYAY Location:
Date: 2024.12.23 14:11:26+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 7 that the persons trained earlier would be treated as seniors to the persons trained later and in between the trained apprentices, preference shall be given to seniors.
Learned Counsel for the respondents has further submitted that speaking orders have already been issued to all the applicants long back stating the reasons for rejection of their cases as per order of this Tribunal, therefore, any criticism or discussion is not permitted without leave of this Tribunal. The Learned Counsel also submitted that these O.As are misconceived and liable to be dismissed.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials placed on record.
9. From perusal of the order passed in O.A.No.350/35/2019 (Biman Banerjee Vs. Union of India & Others) it appears that the issue involved in the present O.As was dealt with by this Tribunal in the said case and following order was issued on 30.07.2024 :-
"11. The respondents have contended that the age of the applicant should be calculated as on 17.8.2018 whereas the applicant has contended that his age should be calculated with reference to the crucial date mentioned in the Employment News dated 17-23rd November, 2007 i.e. 07.12.2007.
12. We are of the opinion that since Employment Notification published by the Government of India, Ministry of Urban Development, office of the Manager, Government of India Press, Santragachi, Howrah for filling up for the post of Assistant Binder clearly specifies that the crucial date for determination for the age limit is 07.12.2007, hence the eligibility of the applicant ought to be decided with reference to the said date. On the said date (i.e. 07.12.2007), the age of the applicant was well within the extended age limit as applicable to him 29 ½ years. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the applicant ought to have been considered to be eligible for appointment in the post of Assistant Binder.
13. In view of the aforesaid discussion the O.A. is allowed subject to verification all the relevant documents submitted by the applicant. The respondents are directed to complete the verification of the documents submitted by the applicant within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order."
10. Considering the rival contentions advanced by both parties and also on perusal of records, we find that the case of the applicants in these cases Digitally signed by SOMA BANDYOPADHYAY SOMA DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=6794, OID.2.5.4.65= 133596418541584061RzFJVlZ8C5fhN1, Phone= 248a2038712d0767cdf2a9a674eb5cc32aa060bb09e b992ecb181b7a052a187d, PostalCode=700114, S= BANDYOPA West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER= f048dc9a9c57abdc8eb507bb0fbc388d2dfdb37eb370 45900c3c33b439ae01bc, CN=SOMA BANDYOPADHYAY Reason: I am the author of this document DHYAY Location:
Date: 2024.12.23 14:11:26+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 8 are squarely covered by the order passed by this Tribunal in O.A.No.350/35/2019 (Biman Banerjee Vs. Union of India & Others) dated 30.07.2024 supra. Accordingly, these O.As are allowed subject to verification of all the relevant documents submitted by the applicants. The respondents are directed to complete the verification of the documents if submitted by the applicants within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. No costs.
(Anindo Majumdar) (Urmita Datta (Sen)
Administrative Member Judicial Member
Sb
Digitally signed by SOMA BANDYOPADHYAY
SOMA DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=6794, OID.2.5.4.65=
133596418541584061RzFJVlZ8C5fhN1, Phone= 248a2038712d0767cdf2a9a674eb5cc32aa060bb09e b992ecb181b7a052a187d, PostalCode=700114, S= BANDYOPA West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER= f048dc9a9c57abdc8eb507bb0fbc388d2dfdb37eb370 45900c3c33b439ae01bc, CN=SOMA BANDYOPADHYAY Reason: I am the author of this document DHYAY Location:
Date: 2024.12.23 14:11:26+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0