Central Administrative Tribunal - Jabalpur
Deepak Patil vs M/O Railways on 28 June, 2023
1 OA No 200/786/2017
Reserved
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, JABALPUR BENCH
JABALPUR
Original Application No.200/786/2017
Jabalpur this Wednesday the day 28th June, 2023
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AKHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE MR. KUMAR RAJESH CHANDRA, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
1. Deepak Patil, S/o Sri Vilas Patil, aged about 33 years, R/o Post Kinhi
Tehsil Bhusawal, District Jalgaon (Maharastra) 425319.
2. Jitendra Kumar Ramteke, S/o Sri Jugram Ramteke, Aged about 31 years,
R/o House No. 258 Post Piriya Tehsil Lanjhi, District Balaghat M.P. 481
224.
3. Lakhan Singh, S/o Sri Nathu Singh, Aged about 29 years, R/o 139,
Gandhi Colony, Police Line, Lalitpur, U.P. 284 403.
4. Arvind Kumar, S/o Sri Gyasi Lal, Aged about 28 years, R/o Lahargird,
Brahma Nagar Colony, Jhansi. U.P.
5. Rajjan Kumar, S/o Sri Babu Ram, Aged about 26 years, R/o Village
Majpur, Post Derapur, District Kanpur Dehat U.P. 209 301.
-Applicants
(By Advocate - Shri Ashish Shroti)
Versus
1. Union of India through General Manager, West Central Railway, Opposite
Indira Market, Jabalpur 482 001.
Page 1 of 9
2 OA No 200/786/2017
2. General Manager, West Central Railway, Opposite Indira Market,
Jabalpur 482 001.
3. Chief Workshop Manager, Sawari Dibba Punarirman Karkhana,
Nishatpura, Bhopal. 462 010.
-Respondents
(By Advocate - Sri Praveen Namdeo)
(Date of Reserving order 19.05.2023)
ORDER
By Justice Akhil Kumar Srivastava Member (J) By means of this O.A., the applicants, five in number, have prayed for a direction to the respondents to issue appointment order in favour of applicants pursuant to their completing apprenticeship training from the date other candidates were given appointment with all consequential benefits viz. back wages, seniority etc.
2. The facts as stated by the applicants in the O.A. are that the Parliament enacted "The Apprentices Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act, 1961), which came into effect w.e.f. 12.12.1961. Section 4 of the Act provides that any person desirous of undergoing apprenticeship training is required to enter into a contract of apprenticeship with the employer. The respondent no.3 Page 2 of 9 3 OA No 200/786/2017 issued a notice dated 15.7.2009 inviting the applications for selection of Act Apprentice for imparting the training in different trades including 24 posts of Welder. Pursuant to the said notice, the applicants, being fully eligible to be considered, have submitted their application and after all necessary formalities, they were selected for undergoing training of the post of Welder vide order dated 18.9.2009. The applicant nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5 underwent the training for the period from 19.9.2009 to 18.3.2011 and passed the prescribed trade test in the month of May, 2011, while applicant no.2 completed the training during the period from 22.9.2009 to 21.9.2010 and passed the trade test in the month of October, 2010.
2.1 On completion of training and also having cleared the proficiency test, the applicants were required to be issued appointment orders by the respondents. However, the orders were not issued to them. To the contrary, as many as 30 candidates were issued appointment vide order dated 15.3.2012. The applicants continued to agitate the said issue, but no heed was paid by the respondents. Being aggrieved, applicant no.4 along with two other persons preferred a representation on 19.8.2015 followed by applicant no.2 with a request to issue appointment orders. Pursuant to application as Page 3 of 9 4 OA No 200/786/2017 submitted by the applicant no.2, the respondent no.3 wrote a letter dated 26.8.2015 to the Chief Personnel Officer, Jabalpur recommending therein to issue appointment orders to the applicants. The said letter dated 26.8.2015 discloses that on account of some mistake on the part of the authorities, the applicants' name were erroneously left out when other 30 persons were issued appointment order in the year 2012.
2.2 The union also took up the case of the applicants with the respondents, to which Chief Personnel Officer, West Central Railway, Jabalpur vide letter dated 26.10.2015 has informed that after completing the recruitment process of Group 'D' posts, the issue of appointment of Act Apprenticeship shall be examined, but despite of that, no action has been taken. Thereafter, applicant- Arvind Kumar sought information under Right to Information Act, 2005, to which Senior Personnel Officer vide letter dated 4.1.2016 informed that the candidates who completed the training upto 2010 have been given appointment and since the applicants have completed course of Apprenticeship in 2011, they have not given appointment. Subsequently, the applicants sought information under RTI, which were replied by the Page 4 of 9 5 OA No 200/786/2017 respondents saying that no junior person to the applicants have been appointed. Hence, this O.A.
3. Per-contra, respondents have filed a detailed Reply wherein they have stated that the training imparted under Apprenticeship Act, 1961, there is no provision for employment in government services after completion of training. The said facts were clearly stipulated in the notification dated 15.7.2009. The respondents have also stated that the Railway Board's issued an order/letter under RBE No. 71 of 2016 dated 21.6.2016 which prescribes that henceforth 20% of all the vacancies in all the direct recruitment to posts in Pay Band-1 and the quota is fixed for Courses Completed Act Apprentices is reflecting in the notification dated 10.2.2018 for recruitment to vacant post in Level-1. The respondents have admitted that the last recruitment of course completed Act Apprentice was made from the trainees who completed the training in 2010/11 and submitted their requests for appointment. The respondents also took the stand that the quota fixed for Courses Completed Act Apprentices is reflecting in the centralized notification no. 2/2018 dated 10.2.2018 for recruitment to vacant post in level-1 and the vacancies are Page 5 of 9 6 OA No 200/786/2017 reserved for courses completed Act Apprentices against total vacant vacancy of that time.
3.1 The respondents have also pleaded that it is not obligatory on the part of the employer to offer any employment to any apprentice who has completed the period of his apprenticeship training in his establishment nor shall it be obligatory on the part of the apprentice to accept any employment under the employer as per Section 22 of Apprentice Act, 1961 which provides as under:-
"Every employer shall formulate its own policy for recruiting any apprentice who has completed the period of apprenticeship in his establishment."
Lastly, the respondents have stated that the O.A. has no merit and the same is liable to be dismissed.
4. The applicants have filed Rejoinder to the Reply filed by the Respondents refuting the contentions made in the Reply while reiterating the averments as already advanced in the Original Application and nothing new has been added.
Page 6 of 9
7 OA No 200/786/2017
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashish Mathur Vs. Oil & Natrual Gas Commission & Others reported in 1991 Supp (2) SCC 294 in support of his arguments.
6. The short question involved in this case is whether the applicants, who have passed the trade test under The Apprenticeship Act 1961, are entitled to get the appointment or not ?. Admittedly, the factual matrix of the case have not been disputed by either of the parties. All the applicants except applicant no.2 have admittedly passed the trade test by underwent the training during the period from 19.9.2009 to 18.3.2011, while the applicant no.2 has completed the training during the period from 22.9.2009 to 21.9.2010.
7. We may note that the very purpose of the Act is to provide skilled candidates for employment and there may not be obligation in law to provide employment. However, every action of the respondents is expected to be transparent, fair and reasonable. In whole of the reply, the respondents have failed to offer any justification/explanation for not providing employment to the applicants especially when other similarly situated persons were granted Page 7 of 9 8 OA No 200/786/2017 employment. Although it is a case of the applicants that many junior persons having on the similar footing have been appointed, but the applicants have failed to point out any name which would show that the respondents have appointed such person ignoring the claim of the applicants.
8. Submission of learned counsel for the respondents is that there is no provision for employment in government service after completion of training. From the bare reading of Apprentice Act, 1961, it is clear that there is no provision for giving employment in the government after completion of training. To this extent, the argument of learned counsel for respondents has force and nobody can claim employment in government after completion of training under Apprenticeship Act, 1961.
9. Since the applicants have underwent the training under Apprenticeship Act, 1961 successfully during the year 2010-11 and as such by passage of time, all the applicants must have crossed the upper age limit to appear in other government jobs and as such a lenient view is being taken to direct the respondents to consider the claim of the applicants for appointment according to the Rules, which prevailed at the time of their training as per the ratio laid by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashish Mathur (supra). Page 8 of 9
9 OA No 200/786/2017
10. In the result, O.A. stands disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the claim of the applicants for appointment according to Rules, which prevailed at the time of training. The said exercise shall be completed within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Parties are directed to bear their own costs.
(Kumar Rajesh Chandra) (Justice Akhil Kumar Srivastava)
Administrative Member Judicial Member
Girish/-
Page 9 of 9