Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Mainak Goswami vs Union Of India & Ors on 27 October, 2025
27.10.2025
(D/L-04)
Ct. No.4
(B.K.N.)
W.P.C.T. 144 of 2024
Mainak Goswami
Vs.
Union of India & Ors.
Mr. Subir Sanyal, Sr. Adv.,
Mr. Ratul Biswas,
Mr. Sagnik Roy Chowdhury,
Mr. Soumyadipta Kanu,
Mr. Trijit Mitra
...for the Petitioner
Mr. Rabindra Nath Bag, Sr. Adv.,
Mr. Guddu Singh,
Mr. Piyas Choudhury,
Mr. Wasim Akram
...for the U.O.I.
1. In the last order dated 25.09.2025 the name of Mr.
Rabindra Nath Bag, learned senior advocate has
wrongly been mentioned as representing the
petitioner. The petitioner was represented by Mr.
Subir Sanyal, learned senior advocate. The
respondents were represented by Mr. Rabindra Nath
Bag, learned senior advocate. The order dated 25.09.2025 stands modified accordingly.
2. After some arguments have been advanced on behalf of the respondents an issue arose based on the pleadings and records that the recruitment process recognized only two kinds of certificates the Course Completed Act Apprentices (CCAA) issued after training in Railway Establishment for which the Railway Board provided 20 per cent horizontal 2 reservation in recruitment. Another certificate recognized for the purpose is the National Apprenticeship Certificate (NAC) issued by the National Council of Vocational Training (NCVT).
3. Petitioner has relied upon the certificate dated 24.08.2018 issued under the National Apprenticeship Training Scheme signed by the Board of Practical Training (Eastern Region) but the training has been undergone at the Chittaranjan Locomotive Works (Burdwan).
4. Whether training at the Railway Establishment is sufficient, or the Railway itself issues a certificate (CCAA) is an issue which is required to be looked into to appreciate the submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the Railway that that the certificate dated 24.08.2018 is not issued by the Railways and, therefore, cannot be considered as a requisite qualification.
5. Mr. Bag, the learned senior counsel submits that he will take instructions and inform the Court whether the Railway issue any such certificate, and under which provision.
6. Mr. Sanyal, learned senior advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that he would also take instructions in this regard, so as to render assistance to the Court when the matter is taken up next.
3
7. As prayed, list this matter on 17th November, 2025.
(Madhuresh Prasad, J.) (Supratim Bhattacharya, J.)