Central Administrative Tribunal - Kolkata
B Sekhar vs Eastern Railway on 19 July, 2023
we. & cers be &S al eae peed ae poids seek 8B ¥ Ten, ye ved 3 < mierrpale Mo "he 3 Hox' orara: t ay CTYE 0} Na a 3 The 2 oa 1715 2017 3. Chief Works Manager, C & W Workshop, Liluaha, Pin- 711204, West Bengal. 4. Workshop Personnel Officer, Liluaha, Eastern Railway, Pin- 721304, West Bengal. seseseees Respondents For The Applicant(s): Mr. M.S. S. Rao, Counsel For The Respondent(s): Ms. T. Mukherjee, Counsel ORDER
Per: Hon'ble Suchitto Kumar Das, Administrative Member The applicant has approached this Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 praying for the following relief:
"(i) An order directing the respondents to absorb them in any Gr.
'D' category of Eastern Railway in-term of Railway Board's establishment serial no. 171/2010 & 113/2012 respectively.
(ii) Any other relief which the Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may be given in favour of the applicants.
(iii) Leave may be granted to file this original application jointly under Rule 4(5)(a) of CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987."
2. For the sake of clarity, facts in the case are delineated and discussed hereinunder:
2.1 The applicant along with four other candidates have undergone Technical Act Apprentice Training while holding the Diploma of Mechanical & Electrical Engineering at Liluah Workshops, Eastern Railway for the period from 04.06.2007 to 03.06.2008.
2.2 The applicants submitted a representation dated 17.02.2010 addressed to the General Manager/Eastern Railway with a request to utilize their \services in Railways by giving employment in any category, as they have 3 oa 1715 2017 completed Technician Apprentice training for a period of one year at Liluah Workshop, Eastern Railway. This representation was followed by several other representations from time to time.
2.3. The applicants based their claim on Railway Board's circular no.
171/2010 dated 02.12.2010 wherein it was inter-alia stated that Diploma/Degree holders trained under the Apprentice Act 1961, in Railway Establishment can also be considered, (similar to ITI, etc trained Act Apprentices engaged as substitutes) for engagement under General Manager's powers as substitute in Group 'D' posts in administrative exigencies, subject to their fulfillment of the extant instructions prescribed for such engagement.
2.4 The Chief Personnel Officer/ Eastern Railway vide letter dated 04.11.2015 addressed to the applicant has informed that the Railway is not in a position to consider GOI Trainees for absorption at present.
2.9 As per the applicants, all other Act Apprentices, 956 in number, who were given training in Eastern Railway organisation during the period 2008- 2010 were completely absorbed. Only six Technician apprentices who were imparted training in Liluah Workshops were left out for employment. Hence, the present OA.
3. Learned Counsel for the applicants submits that Railway Board vide RBE no. 171/2010 has specifically provided for consideration of Technician Apprentices for appointment as Substitute Gr. 'D' under GM's powers in the Railways. The applicants were Diploma holders in Mechanical and Electrical Engineering who had completed one year of Apprenticeship in Liluah Workshop of Eastern Railway and were eligible for appointment as Substitute Gr. 'D' under GM's powers as per the provision of the said RBE circular.
4 0a 1715 2017 3.1 Learned Counsel for the applicants further submits a total of 956 Course Completed Act Apprentices (CCAA) were given appointment in Gr. 'D' in Eastern Railway upto 2010. In fact, according to the applicants, all CCAAs were absorbed upto 2010, and only the applicants herein, who are six in number and are Technician Apprentices, were not absorbed.
3.2 Learned Counsel for the applicants submits that a number of Technician Apprentices were absorbed in South Eastern Railway and in Jamalpur Workshop and only the Technician Apprentices who were trained in Liluah Workshop were not given employment. This is a clear case of discrimination Pr 7 and against the principles of natural justice.
3.3. Learned Counsel for the applicants cites the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of CAT at Chandigarh in OA no. 060/415/2018 (Mamta Saini & Ors.
vs. Union of India & Ors.), in support of his argument.
4. Per contra, Learned counsel for the respondents, relying upon the reply filed by the respondents, submits that the letter offering apprenticeship to the applicants clearly stated that the apprenticeship does not automatically entitle the applicants to employment under the Railways. RBE no. 171/2010 and 113/2012 made them eligible for appointment as Substitute Gr. 'D' under GM's powers. It, in no way, conferred any right on the Apprentices to claim appointment under the respondents. The RBE no. 171/2010 states that such apprentices can be considered for appointment under GM's powers as Substitute Gr. 'D' to meet administrative exigencies. It is implied that their appointment would be considered in case a requirement of new employees arose. Thus an element of discretion on the part of authorities was implicit in RBE no. 171/2010 and 113/2012. Such administrative exigencies did not exist 5 0a 1715 2017 or did not arise to warrant the consideration of the applicants for ~ appointment as Substitute Gr. 'D'.
4.1 Learned Counsel for the respondents submits that presently recruitment in Gr. 'D' in the Railways is done by the Railway Recruitment Cell and engagement under GM's powers as Substitute Gr. 'D' is no longer in vogue. Railway have provided for 20% reservation for Course Completed Act Apprentices (CCAA) in recruitment in Gr. 'D' posts vide their letter dated 21.06.2016.
24.2 Railway authorities have also discontinued the practice of absorbing Act Apprentices by withdrawing letter no. E (MPP)/2002/12/261 Vol. Il dated 21.06.2004 ( RBE No. 136/2004) vide RBE no. 34/2017 dated 12.04.2017. As letter dated 21.06.2004 was the basis for RBE no. 171/2010 and 113/2012, these two RBE circulars on which the claim of the applicants is based are automatically withdrawn. Learned Counsel for the respondents, therefore, submits that the question of offering appointment to the applicants and Substitute Gr. 'D' does not arise in the present circumstances.
5. Applicants, in their rejoinder, make the point that the rights of the applicants to employment as Substitute Gr. 'D' arose in 2008 when they completed their course and was recognized by RBE no. 171/2010 and 113/2012. Subsequent withdrawal of these circulars does not extinguish their right. The applicants have been making representation to the authorities since 2010 demanding employment. The applicants are in no way responsible for the delay in considering their case and to posit at this late stage that they 'cannot be offered appointment under the new policy is denial of natural justice to the applicants.
oa 1715 2017
6. Heard both sides at length. Perused materials on record.
6.1 The applicants have based their case on the provisions of RBE no. 171/2010 and 113/2012. It is noted that the applicants are Diploma engineers who are called Technician Apprentices or GO! Apprentices. These Apprentices are distinct from Trade Apprentices who are called Course Completed Act Apprentices or CCAAs. Railway had a specific policy delineated in their letter no. 21.06.2004 to consider the CCAAs for absorption under GM's powers as Substitute Gr. 'D'.
\nistr, ae
-- at tte 6.2 In 2010, vide RBE no. 171/2010, this consideration was extended to the peunet> ~ a + $ S uo er.
Ce rey GOI Apprentices too. RBE 113/2012 gives the modalities for considering such candidates for appointment as per the provisions of RBE no. 171/2010. For the sake of clarity, RBE no. 171/2010 is quoted below in full :-
Seer Government of India (Bharat Sarkar} Ministry of Railways (Rail Mantrataya) (Railway Board) RBE Mol Is aTG Mei MPP yZOOb/ os t Meany Doli, dated O2.bA.2070 The General Managers, All Indian Railways including Procuction Units Sub: - Engagement of Course Completed Act Apprentices as substitutes in Group 'DD' on Indian Mailways ; Grav cetehe The cotter flea BRODIE Pe De gre Fa dared 2a POS baer eooteed Gat Case Cornapetect Act euuapreritionms Cam: toe aungaed al destitute trettlewe ee iTenehys, soongps 1D comeber General Miamaqenrs: powers my adden. [It Gs vorther clarified that OlplamafOegrec haiders Crained under the Apprenticns Act LOGL (as amended fear thine to time) in Rathvay establishrients fan also be considered, (similar to Vil, ete trained Act Apprentices engaged as substitutes) for engagement as substitutes in Group 'D" posts within the General Manogars' powers in administrative exigencies, subject ta their fulfllnygnty of the extant instructions prescribed for such angagement. i ~{ preset, (Ani Wasen) Ppivdrn loy. Diructor TOMPPY Ratthary Pooce th hots . .
ETE POs? Pio, ced, dated Go be aia Tlaypay Caos i. The General Secretary, AIRF, 4, State Entry Road, Naw Dati, wilh 35 spares, ae The General Secretary, NFIR, 3 Chelmsford Road, New Delhi, with 35 spares. 3S. The Secretary General FROA, Rao, No.256-A Rall Bhaven New Delhi with 5 spares, .
i. me Secretary General, IRPOF, Room No.268 Rall Bhavan New Delhi with 3 sDparcs
5. The Secr BH. AML hleentt Lon Berry e ary RBSS Group 'A' Officers Association, Raom Moa.8G2, Rail Bhavan.
ro, Oepartmental Council and Secretary Staff side National Council t3- b Prad, Meow Delhi with G0 sparad retort : Soo, Bloat tee fo fowl Gb aya teak bonis pay Bye OTE Aen 7 oa 1715 2017 The applicants being Diploma holder Apprentices, have claimed that in spite of the provisions contained in the abovequoted circular, they were not considered for appointment as Substitutes Gr. 'D' under GM's powers in spite of repeated representations made by them to the authorities.
6.3. On going through the circular quoted above, we are in agreement with the respondents' stand that RBE no. 171/2010 is merely an enabling provision for the Diploma holder apprentices to be considered for appointment as Gr. 'D' Substitutes. [t, in no way, makes any commitment regarding absorption of the apprentices. In fact the circular clearly states that the Diploma holder Apprentices can be considered for appointment in administrative exigencies. It is the case of the respondents that there was no administrative exigency which would warrant consideration of the applicants for appointment. We are of the considered view that existence of administrative exigency is to be determined by the authorities. In the instant case, the authorities did not feel that any exigency existed which required the candidature of Diploma holder apprentices to be considered for engagement as Substitute under GM's powers. Therefore, the candidature of the applicants was not considered by the respondents.
6.4 We find no merit in the applicants' claim that their right to employment accrued on the basis of RBE no. 171/2010 and RBE no. 113/2012. We also fail to appreciate the applicants' argument with regard to discrimination vis-a-vis other Apprentices. As noted above, the applicants would have been considered for appointment provided there was an administrative exigency. Since no such exigency existed or occurred, they were not considered for appointment at the relevant time.
-
8 oa 1715 2017 6.5 We have gone through the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of CAT at Chandigarh in OA no, 060/415/2018 (Mamta Saini & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.) cited by the Learned Counsel for the applicants. This judgment directs the respondents to offer employment to the applicants who had qualified in the screening test but were not given appointment, whereas some other Diploma holder Apprentices who had failed in the screening were given appointment based on the Court's order. The circumstances in OA no. 060/415/2018 (Mamta Saini & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.) are thus completely distinguishable from those in the present OA. Hence, the judgment :} cited by the Learned Counsel for the applicants is not applicable in the instant case.
6.6 In the light of the above discussion, we find no merit in the applicants' claim to be appointed as Substitute Gr. 'D' in the respondent organization.
7. OA is thus determined to be devoid of merit and is dismissed.
No costs.
(suchitt) Kamar Das) (JJayesh v\Bhairavia) Administrative Member Judicial Member sl