Central Administrative Tribunal - Hyderabad
Y Raju vs M/O Railways on 17 December, 2021
CP 54/2021 in OA 383/2018
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
HYDERABAD BENCH
CP No. 54/2021
in
OA No. 383/2018
HYDERABAD, this the 17th day of December, 2021
Hon'ble Mr. Ashish Kalia, Judl. Member
Hon'ble Mr. B.V. Sudhakar, Admn. Member
Mr. Y. Raju,
S/o. Late Hanumanthu,
R/o. 31-644, Near Saibaba Temple,
Kothapeta Post, Near Dharmavaram Rly. Station,
Ananthapur Dist. A.P.
... Applicant.
(By Advocate: Mr. K Sudhaker Reddy)
Vs.
Mr. Gajanan Mallya,
General Manager,
South Central Railway,
Rail Nilayam, III Floor,
Secunderabad- 500 071.
... Respondents.
(By Advocate: Mrs. A P Lakshmi, SC For Railways)
---
Page 1 of 4
CP 54/2021 in OA 383/2018
ORAL ORDER
(As per Hon'ble Mr. Ashish Kalia, Judl. Member) Through Video Conferencing:
Mr. K Sudhaker Reddy, learned counsel for the applicants.
2. Mrs. A.P. Lakshmi, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent.
3. This matter is listed today and compliance report is stated to have been filed by the learned counsel for the respondents. She has drawn our attention to Page 16 of the compliance report which reads as below:
" On examining the record, it is seen that the name of Shri Y Raju s/o late Hanumanthy was forwarded in the additional list of names dated 15.09.2012 by CRS/TPYS for which no authority was given to that Workshop. Accordingly, he was not considered for screening for engagement as Substitute. Your comparison with one Sri P Vinod Kumar who had trained at WWS/Guntupalli and who was screened for that workshop is not correct as he belongs to a different workshop than you, and his candidature was only considered for WWS/Guntupalli where his name featured in the select list sent by that workshop. It should be noted that no person junior to you in CRS/TPYS has been screened and engaged as Substitute. Hence, there is no claim on the ground of being left out for a junior person. Though the screening of all 122 candidates was done together for the workshops as an administrative measure, the requirement was assessed as per the respective workshop and candidates trained in that workshop only were considered for appointment as Substitute.
The Ministry of Railways, pursuant to amendment to Section 22, sub-section(1) of the Apprentice Act, 1961 (vide Letter No. E(NG)II/2016/RR-1/8 dt. 21.06.2016) has decided that 20% of the vacancies in case of Direct recruitment to posts/categories in Level-1/GP-1800/-(7th PC) shall be filled giving preference to Course Completed Act Apprentice trainees in Railway establishment and possessing National Apprenticeship Certificate(NAC) granted by National Council of Vocational Training(NCVT), the candidate as such has an option to apply for the employment in Railways against the future Notifications to be issued by the concerned RRB/RRC subject to fulfilment of the eligibility conditions prescribed thereof (or) in response to Page 2 of 4 CP 54/2021 in OA 383/2018 any other specific Notifications to be issued in future as the case may be.
This disposes off the directions of Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal/HYB."
4. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that as per seniority, no juniors to the petitioner were appointed in the workshop where the petitioner is working. The juniors who have been cited to have been offered appointment belong to other workshops. On the contrary, learned counsel for the contempt petitioner submits that the petitioner is senior and his juniors have been engaged by the respondents.
5. Heard learned counsels for the parties at length.
6. We are of this view that this Tribunal has directed the respondents to implement the order by considering the applicants, who are apprentice, for regular appointments. The respondents themselves interpreted the order of this Tribunal that workshop seniority has to be maintained. This Tribunal has nowhere directed the respondents to maintain workshop-wise seniority. In the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Roshan Lal Tandon vs Union Of India [1967 AIR 1889], the Court has directed to maintain All-India seniority for apprentice.
7. In our considered view, the respondents have not complied with the order of this Tribunal in its true spirit. If it is not possible to maintain All- India seniority, at least Zonal seniority should be maintained and the applicant should be considered in preference to those apprentice who have passed the apprentice test subsequent to them. This exercise should be Page 3 of 4 CP 54/2021 in OA 383/2018 completed within a period of six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. It is ordered accordingly.
8. With the above observation, the CP is closed with liberty to the applicant to re-approach this Tribunal in accordance with law.
(B.V. SUDHAKAR) (ASHISH KALIA)
ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
/Ram/
Page 4 of 4