Central Administrative Tribunal - Jabalpur
Subodh Kumar vs M/O Defence on 9 December, 2025
1 OA 200/1120/2017
Reserved
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, JABALPUR BENCH
JABALPUR BENCH
Original Application No.200/1120/2017
Jabalpur, this Tuesday, the 9th day of December, 2025
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AKHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE MRS. MALLIKA ARYA, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
Subodh Kumar, S/o Shri Nathu Rajak, Aged about 37 years, T.No. 105/13205,
Trade (Welder), S.A., Vehical Factory, Jabalpur (M.P.) 482001.
-Applicant
(By Advocate - Balwant Rai)
Versus
1. Union of India Through its Secretary, Department of Defence,
Production & Supplies, Ministry of Defence, South Block, New Delhi -
110011.
2. Director General Ordinance Factory, Government of India, Ministry of
Defence, Ordinance Factory Board, 10-A Saheed Khudiram Bose Marg,
Kolkata - 700001.
3. The General Manager, Vehicle Factory, Jabalpur, Jabalpur (M.P.)
482009
-Respondents
(By Advocate - Shri S.P.Singh)
ORDER
By Mallika Arya, Administrative Member-
The facts of the case, in brief, are that the applicant did Ex-Trade Apprenticeship in Welder Trade in the year 2004 from Vehicle Factory, Jabalpur, (Annexure A-3). The Government of India, Ministry of Defence, Ordinance Factory Board, Calcutta vide letter No. 570/A/A (III) dated 15/20 October, 1999 Page 1 of 8 VISHAL 2025.12.10 KUSHWAH 17:51:08+05'30' 2 OA 200/1120/2017 (Annexure-A/5) issued guidelines for the Recruitment of Ex-Trade Apprentices in Ordinance Factories. Para (iii) and (iv) of the guidelines/rules for the recruitment of Apprentices (Annexure A/5) reads as under:-
"The selection process is based on fitness cum seniority. Only trade test will be conducted to ascertain whether the ex-trade apprentice is fit for the job or not. If he is unfit (i.e. he failed in trade test) he is to be excluded. Amongst the candidates who pass the trade test, and are therefore fit, the selection will be done, strictly on seniority. That is why it is very important that the factories accurately batch wise and in the same batch maintain seniority list. The trade test should be same as in a trade test conducted for promotions of industrial employees in OF's. the suitability or otherwise of the candidate is to be determined by the selection board in the test".
iv)"Factories should normally testing the call of ex-trade apprentices for the test one and half times the number of vacancies intended to be filled up. This is to provide necessary cushion to meet the eventuality of some of the candidates so called not turning up for the test or failing in test. Once the number of candidates selected/passed reaches the number required, the test is stopped. This position may be explained to the candidates before starting the test. This is necessary as maintaining waiting list of selected candidates has its problems, leading to litigation later.
2. The applicant belongs to S.C. category and is also physically handicapped. Respondents while filling up the vacancies of apprentices were required to first apply the roster points for reserved vacancies for SC/ST/OBC community as well as Physically Handicapped category. After determining the vacancies available for the reserved categories/physically Page 2 of 8 VISHAL 2025.12.10 KUSHWAH 17:51:08+05'30' 3 OA 200/1120/2017 handicapped, they were required to fill up all the vacancies. Despite the availability of Apprentice of Welder Trade with the Vehicle Factory, Jabalpur Respondent No.3 issued appointments of Apprentice to other trades against the vacancies of Welder Trade in the year 2005 to 2010 thereby prejudicing the claim of the applicant. The applicant submitted a representation dated 31.10.2017 (Annexure A-8) to Respondent No. 3. The representation has not been decided despite the fact that the applicant was declared qualified for promotion to the post of High Skilled-II vide Order No. 249 dated 12.08.2016 (Annexure A/6). He did not get his promotion to High Skilled-II. Applicant was initially appointed to the post of semi- skilled (Welder Trade) vide order dated 03.03.2011 (Annexure-A/7). Applicant beside being Ex-Trade Apprentice in the Welder Trade in the year 2004 was not called for any trade test conducted in the year 2004-2005 along with other apprentices, selected and appointed vide impugned orders dated 20.10.2005 (Annexure A/1) and 24.10.2005 (Annexure A/2). Hence, the action of the respondents is in violation of the Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Respondents in Para 3 of their letter dated 16.05.2016 (Annexure A/4) have emphatically denied that during the year 2004-2005 the posts of Semi-skilled were filled from amongst the available Apprentice Page 3 of 8 VISHAL 2025.12.10 KUSHWAH 17:51:08+05'30' 4 OA 200/1120/2017 trade candidates and there was no Apprentice trade candidate available from the Welder Trade. Accordingly, the applicant has sought the following relief:- "to grant appointment to the applicant to the post of Semi-Skilled against S.C. or Physically Handicapped quota, at par with other appointees who were appointed vide impugned orders dated 20.10.2005 and 24.10.2005 along with all consequential benefits and to direct the respondents to promote the applicant to the post of High-skilled at par with the other appointees who were also appointed as semi-skilled and subsequently promoted to the post of High Skilled.
3. Respondents have given their reply. They have submitted that as per the recruitment policy every factory is required to maintain the seniority list of Ex-Trade Apprentice. Apprentices trained in the earlier batches will be en-bloc senior to the Apprentices of the subsequent batches. Ex-Trade Apprentice candidates selected in VFJ during 2004-2005 were from the 32nd Batch of General category, 35th batch for SC category and 41st Batch of SC category. Hence, Ex-trade Apprentices who were senior to the applicant were appointed in 2004-2005. The policy states that the recruitment has to be made batch-wise and not trade-wise. Therefore, the claim of the applicant is not in accordance with the recruitment policy of the trade Page 4 of 8 VISHAL 2025.12.10 KUSHWAH 17:51:08+05'30' 5 OA 200/1120/2017 Apprentices as per the directives of the Ordnance Factory Board, Kolkata. The applicant has submitted that he belongs to SC category and to physically handicapped category. He does not belong to Physically Handicapped category as per the certificate No. 594 dated 20.07.2017 issued by Civil Surgeon, District Vaishali, Bihar. His disability has been assessed as 17%. A sanction for recruitment against 355 vacancies, was received. Vacancies for each category i.e. SC, ST, OBC and Physically Handicapped were worked out. Out of 168 Ex-trade apprentices available, 144 candidates got selected. This was done as per the OFB policy dated 20.10.1999. None of the employees junior to the applicant have been promoted. Hence, there has been no violation of the policy of the OFB dated 20.10.1999.
4. The applicant has filed a rejoinder wherein he has contradicted the contention of the respondents that no apprentice of the Welder Trade was available in the year 2004-2005. The applicant passed the Apprentice test in Welder Trade in the year 2004. Due to his non-appointment in the year 2005, a serious prejudice has been caused to him. The averment made by the respondents that no junior of the applicant has been promoted is not Page 5 of 8 VISHAL 2025.12.10 KUSHWAH 17:51:08+05'30' 6 OA 200/1120/2017 supported by evidence. The respondents should have placed the seniority list of the Apprentice Trade before this Tribunal.
5. Respondents have filed an additional reply to the rejoinder. They have submitted that recruitment in the year 2005 was made strictly as per the batch-wise seniority. The applicant belongs to the 44th batch of Trade Apprentices. In the year 2005, 10 posts of Welder were filled. The last candidate selected as Welder belonged to ST category and was from 40th batch. The question of Intra-batch of seniority does not arise. Since, the last person selected as Welder in the ST category belonged to the 40th batch, he is much senior to the applicant who belonged to the 44th batch. The medical certificate of the applicant issued by Civil Surgeon, Vaishali mentions a disability of 17%. Therefore, he cannot be treated as a physically handicapped person. A copy of the factory order No. 414 dated 06.08.2018 notifying the promotions is enclosed as Annexure RA/2.
6. We take note of the fact that the applicant is challenging the impugned order dated 03.03.2011 (Annexure A/7) wherein Ex-trade apprentices have been appointed as semi-skilled workman in the year 2005. The applicant has also challenged order dated 20.10.2005 (Annexure A/2). The respondents have contended that the applicant belonged to 44th batch and Page 6 of 8 VISHAL 2025.12.10 KUSHWAH 17:51:08+05'30' 7 OA 200/1120/2017 the promotions were given strictly as per batch-wise seniority. In VFJ, Jabalpur the 32nd batch for general category, 35th batch of SC category and 41st batch for ST category were considered for promotion in 2004-2005. The policy clearly states that recruitment has to be made 'batch wise' and not 'trade-wise'. The applicant can only be considered against the SC category as he does not possess the requisite parameters to be declared a Physically Handicapped candidate. Against the vacancies of 355 the category wise vacancies were worked out for SC/ST/OBC/PH categories and thereafter, 144 candidates were selected. "Since their recruitment policy lays down the principle of batch-wise seniority and not Trade-wise seniority. Therefore, in some cases training had to be imparted to Trade Apprentices other than the trade in which they were initially trained to meet the functional requirements of the factory." This was done as per the recruitment policy dated 20.10.1999. Hence, the Ex-Trade apprentices who were appointed in 2004-2005 are senior to the applicant. The respondents have stated that none of the employees junior to the applicant have been promoted.
7. We also take note of the fact that although the applicant is challenging the contention of the respondents that no person junior to him has been Page 7 of 8 VISHAL 2025.12.10 KUSHWAH 17:51:08+05'30' 8 OA 200/1120/2017 promoted, he has not mentioned the name of any junior who has got promotion in the year 2004-2005 nor has he arrayed any such person as a private respondent in this O.A.. Since, the applicant belonged to the 44th batch of Trade Apprentices, and the last selected candidate as Welder Trade belonged to the ST category who was from the 40th batch, hence, the claim of the applicant is untenable.
8. In view of the detailed explanation given by the respondents in their reply regarding filling up of the posts of Trade Apprentices in the year 2004-2005, and the fact that the applicant being junior to the selected candidates could not be considered for promotion as per the Recruitment Policy of the respondents, we are of the considered view that there is no merit in the Original Application.
9. Accordingly, the Original Application is dismissed. No order as to costs.
(Mallika Arya) (Akhil Kumar Srivastava)
Administrative Member Judicial Member
Shashi/VK
Page 8 of 8
VISHAL 2025.12.10
KUSHWAH 17:51:08+05'30'