Gauhati High Court
Deepak vs The Union Of India And 6 Ors on 11 September, 2023
Author: Soumitra Saikia
Bench: Soumitra Saikia
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010195122017
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/2153/2017
DEEPAK
S/O. JAGADISH CHANDER, R/O. HOUSE NO. 630, WARD NO. 22,
PANCHSHEEL COLONY, NEAR MILTON ROAD, SONIPAT-131001, HARYANA.
VERSUS
THE UNION OF INDIA and 6 ORS.
THROUGH THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF
RAILWAY, NEW DELHI.
2:THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR OF APPRENTICESHIP TRAINING
EASTERN REGION
CGO COMPLEX
DF BLOCK
SECTOR 1-E
FIRST FLOOR
SALT LAKE
KOLKATA-700064.
3:THE GENERAL MANAGER PERSONNEL
N.F. RAILWAY
MALIGAON
GUWAHATI-781011
DIST. KAMRUPM
ASSAM.
4:THE CHIEF WORKSHOP ENGINEER CWE
N.F. RAILWAY
MALIGAON
Page No.# 2/4
GUWAHATI-781011
DIST. KAMRUPM
ASSAM.
5:THE CHIEF WORKSHOP MANAGER
N.F. RAILWAY WORKSHOP
P.O. DIBRUGARH
PIN-786001
DIST. DIBRUGARH
ASSAM.
6:THE ASSTT. PERSONNEL OFFICER
N.F. RAILWAY
MECHANICAL WORKSHOP
P.O. DIBRUGARH
PIN-786001
DIST. DIBRUGARH
ASSAM.
7:THE PRINCIPAL
SUPERVISOR TRAINING CENTRE
NEW BONGAIGAON
N.F. RAILWAY
P.O. NEW BONGAIGAON
DIST. BONGAIGAON
ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.R K JAIN
Advocate for the Respondent : MR.A K SARKARSC, N.F.Railway.
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA
ORDER
Date : -11/09/2023 Heard Mr. K. Biswakarma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. A. K. Dutta, learned CGC appears for the respondents.
2. The grievance of the petitioner is that he had applied for undergoing Page No.# 3/4 apprenticeship training under the N.F. Railways. He was allowed to undergo training for about 11 (eleven) months. Subsequently, he was terminated from the said training on the ground that he had earlier undergone apprenticeship training in a private concern, namely Maruti Suzuki. According to the railway authority a person cannot be allowed to undergo apprenticeship training twice. Being aggrieved, the petitioner had approached this court challenging his termination. The petitioner has approached his court and submits that he has undergone 11 (eleven) months of training and after completion of the training, he is required to appear for the examination for apprenticeship test, which was scheduled to commence from 18th April 2017.
3. This court while issuing notice of motion by order dated 06.04.2017 permitted the petitioner to appear in the said examination, but the results were directed not to be declared until further orders. The said interim order continued and was extended from time to time.
4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he has appeared in the examination pursuant to the orders of the court, however, the results are withheld and till date he does not know his position.
5. Mr. A.K. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for N.F. Railways has referred to the affidavit stated to have been filed by the respondent authority. A perusal of the affidavit reveals that the termination of the petitioner was stated to have been made following the procedures prescribed under the N.F. Railways Apprentice Act, 1961 and the Rules made thereunder. There is a categorical averment in the affidavit that the petitioner did not fulfill the eligibility criteria. The affidavit also stated that since the petitioner had undergone training at Maruti Suzuki for one year and was conferred with the National Apprenticeship Page No.# 4/4 Certificate by NCVT, the petitioner was not eligible for apprenticeship training again. However, on a pointed query made by the court, the learned counsel is unable to refer to the specific provisions under the Act or under the Rules which prohibits candidates from undergoing apprenticeship training if they had earlier undergone the same.
6. The learned counsel for the railways are directed to place before this court the criteria for selection of candidates for undergoing Apprenticeship training under the N.F. Railway and the specific bar if any which prohibits candidates from undergoing apprenticeship training again if they have earlier completed it.
7. Mr. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the railways is permitted to 1 (one) week's further time to place these information before this court.
8. List this matter again on 25.09.2023.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant