Central Administrative Tribunal - Hyderabad
Jogi Appa Rao vs Defence on 16 April, 2024
OA/160/2022
2
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
HYDERABAD BENCH
OA/020/0160/2022
HYDERABAD, this the 16th day of April, 2024
Hon'ble Dr. Lata Baswaraj Patne, Judicial Member
Hon'ble Ms. Shalini Misra, Administrative Member
1. Jogi Appa Rao, S/o Narasimhulu Aged 40 yrs,
Occ: unemployed, R/o Hayatinagaram,
Balaji nagar street, Gujarateepeta post, Srikakulam, A.P.
2. Mataparti Sridhar, S/o Satya narayana,
Aged about 40 yrs, Occ: unemployed,
R/o D.No. 63-2-159, Indira Colony
3. A Satish Kumar, S/o Suryanarayana Murthy,
Aged 36yrs, Occ: unemployed, R/o 63-4-20/4,
Pavanaputranagar, Sriharipuram, Malkapuram (P),
Visakhapatnam-530011.
4. Sarveshwar Kumar, Age 33 yrs,
S/o Bindeswar Sharma, Occ: unemployed,
R/o War village, War district, Aurangabad, Bihar-824103,
presently residing at Hyderabad.
..... Applicants.
(By Advocate: Ms. Anita Swain)
Vs.
1. The Union of India,
Rep by its secretary,
Ministry of Defence, South block
New Delhi, 110011.
2. The Chief of Naval Staff,
Naval Headquarters, South block,
New Delhi, 110011
3. The Flag Officer Commanding in Chief,
Headquarters, Eastern Naval Command,
Visakhapatnam.530014
... Respondents
(By Advocate: Ms. N Naga Prasanthi, Addl.CGSC)
-----
Page 1 of 6
OA/160/2022
2
ORAL ORDER
(As per Hon'ble Dr. Lata Baswaraj Patne, Judicial Member) By this Original Application, the applicants are seeking the following relief(s):
"This Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to call for the records after examining the same
(a). Declare the action of the Respondents, fixing upper age limit as criteria for being eligible to apply for the post of tradesman (skilled) for the ex-naval apprentices ( ex-apprentices of Dockyards apprentices school of Indian Navy) illegally and arbitrarily as null, void and violative of article 14 and 21 of constitution of India and
(b). Declare the amendment under SRO 31/2017 to the extent of erroneous fixing of the upper age limits for Naval apprentices is, as the same is ultra-virus to Article 14 and 21 of constitution of India.
(c). consequently direct the respondent's to receive the application from the applicants without reference to the upper age limit and permit them to participate in recruitment process and consider their candidature for Tradesman (skilled) vacancies as per their seniority in the respective trade(vacancies) as per the rules and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice. ."
2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicants were ex-naval apprentices of Naval Dockyard Apprentices School, Visakhapatnam of 2001 batch onwards. The applicants are in the panel of seniority list maintained by Naval Dockyard Apprentices School ever since completion of their training, to be absorbed / recruited to the Tradesman (skilled) post as and when vacancies arise as per the SRO 150/2000. The SRO 150/200 was amended by SRO 43/2012, due to which, 60 % designated posts of Naval Apprentices were opened for candidates holding National Apprentice Certificate (NAC) in relevant trade issued by NCCVT by direct recruitment. Thereafter, the SRO 31/2017 deleted the direct recruitment of the candidates holding NAC certificates in relevant trade issued by NCCVT, and however, erroneously mentioned the age criteria in column 6 for direct recruitment, which is illegal, arbitrary and violative of the Article 14 of the constitution. The recruitment notification in Indian Navy was issued exclusively for ex-apprentices of Page 2 of 6 OA/160/2022 2 Indian Navy on 18-2-2022, prescribing age limit of 18 to 25 years. The applications were accepted through Online from 20-2-22 to 20-3-2022. The juniors to the applicants in the seniority list of apprentices are being considered for selection and recruitment and applicants, who are seniors to them, are being thrown out of the recruitment process by illegal and arbitrary interpretation of the rules governing the recruitment / absorption of ex-naval apprentices into Tradesman (skilled) category. Since the applications of the similar applicants were not being registered online, they approached this Hon'ble Tribunal vide O.A. No 142/2022 and batch, wherein this Hon'ble Tribunal issued an interim order on 10-3-2022 to receive their applications either online or off line. Consequently, the respondents enhanced the date for receiving applications from 20/3/2022 to 4/5/2022. Hence, the present O.A is filed to allow the applicants as well to participate in the selection process.
3. After notice the respondents have appeared through their counsel and opposed the relief on the ground that the Notification 01/2022 was issued for recruitment of civilian personnel in Indian Navy for the post of Tradesman (skilled). In the said notification, age limit between 18 and 25 years as on crucial date with relaxation is provided as under:-
(a) Relaxable for Govt. servants up to forty years in accordance with instructions or orders issued by Central Govt. from time to time and further relaxable for five years, as in the case of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
(b) Relaxable to apprentice to the extent of the period for which the apprentice had undergone training.
Being aggrieved by the upper age limit fixed in the above notification, as many as 20 OAs have been filed before the Hon'ble CAT(Hyd) and the Hon'ble CAT(Mumbai) seeking upper age relaxation in the undergoing recruitment of civilian personnel for the post of Tradesman (skilled). The entire case of the applicants has misdirected the recruitment for the post of Tradesman (skilled) by averments made by them. The Page 3 of 6 OA/160/2022 2 learned counsel for the respondents further contended that SRO 43/2012 was amended by SRO 31/2017 dated 29-04-2017 wherein Column(4) and Column (10) of Tradesman (skilled) grade are amended as under:-
(a). Column (4) for "Pay Band-1, Rs.5200-20200 plus Grade Pay Rs.1900/-"
amended as "Level-2 (Rs.19900- 63200) in the pay matrix" post implementation of 7th CPC.
(b). Column (10)
For Amended as
Designated Trades: Designated Trades:
Sixty percent by direct recruitment Sixty percent by selection of ex-Naval
through selection of candidates holding apprentices having age criteria as
National Apprenticeship Certificate in the mentioned relevant trade issued by National Council in column(6) failing which by direct Vocational Training, Other qualification recruitment and forty percent by being equal, preference will be given to promotion failing which by direct ex-apprentices of Dockyard Apprentice recruitment.
Schools of the Indian Navy. Forty percent by promotion failing which by direct recruitment.
Non- Designated Trades: Optional Trade:
Ninety percent by selection of Ex-Naval Ninety percent by selection of ex-Naval Apprentices of Non-Designated Trades Apprentices and ten percent by and ten percent by promotion failing promotion.
which by direct recruitment.
4. Heard both sides and perused the records.
5. By virtue of the interim order, the applicants were allowed to participate in the said selection. In one of the O.A.s, this Tribunal has directed the respondents to produce the result before the court. However, in other O.As this Tribunal has not issued any such order.
6. Moreover, the learned counsel for the applicants further submits that they have challenged the said recruitment rules. It is further argued that, to deny such an opportunity the applicants, who were working as Apprentices, the respondents department has inserted the clause of Age. Thereby, the applicants, who have crossed Page 4 of 6 OA/160/2022 2 the upper age, are denied the further opportunity of appointment. Hence, the said rule of giving cut off to the age is against the Constitution. Therefore, the learned counsel for the applicants prays for the said rule to be struck down.
7. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the relief on the ground that the subject advertisement for recruitment of Tradesman is issued in accordance with the Recruitment Rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution, as amended from time to time; and, therefore, the same cannot be challenged on the ground that the age relaxation is not given to the applicants. He submitted that the claim of the applicants for age relaxation is contrary to the Rules and the same cannot be granted without challenge to the constitutional validity of Recruitment Rules. Further, the Recruitment Rules, as amended from time to time, is the policy decision of the Government, as stipulated under Section 22 (1) of the Apprentices Act, 1961. Therefore, the applicants cannot claim right of automatic absorption in view of 2012 amendment to the said Rules. The rights of the applicants are never violated and giving age relaxation to the applicants will amount to legislate, which is not permissible.
8. It is brought to our notice that the Co-ordinate Bench, Mumbai passed order in O.A./546/2022 & Batch and the operative portion thereof is as follows :
" 23. In the light of Model Contract of Apprenticeship Training and the employer's obligations, referred to above, we are of the firm opinion that no right is vested in the applicants to claim any right, much less the age relaxation. The applicants could not point out any violation of the Recruitment Rules in the subject advertisement for recruitment to the post of Tradesman Skilled. On the contrary, the exercise is done perfectly in accordance with Recruitment Rules.
24. We are in total agreement with the argument of respondents that granting relief of age relaxation to the applicants will be contrary to the Recruitment Rules and the same will amount to legislate, which is not permissible for the Tribunal. In this regard, the respondents' argument is substantiated with the decision of Supreme Court in M.S. Heble's case (supra), wherein it has been held that when the Central Government has declined the power of relaxation under the relevant Rules, the Tribunal is not justified in exercising the same in derogation of the Rules.Page 5 of 6
OA/160/2022 2
25. Taking totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, discussed above, we do not find any merit in these O.As. Accordingly, the same are dismissed. Interim orders, if any, shall stand vacated.
26. Pending M.As. if any, shall stand disposed of."
9. Since the similar issue has already been decided by the Co-ordinate Bench, Mumbai in O.A./546/2022 & Batch, as extracted above, though the applicant's counsel submits that the same has been challenged before the High Court and is pending, however, the order which is passed by the Mumbai Bench still holds good. Therefore, followed with the same, this Tribunal has to take concurrent view.
10. It is to be noted that in respect of this recruitment, all over India litigation has taken place and Co-ordinate Bench, Mumbai has considered the issue in detail and passed the order followed with the challenge made to the age criteria.
11. Therefore, issue involved in the matter is no more res-Integra and is squarely covered by the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench, Mumbai in respect of the rules of the age relaxation. Hence, we do not find any merit in the matter and accordingly, the O.A. is dismissed. Pending M.As, if any, also stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
(SHALINI MISRA) (DR. LATA BASWARAJ PATNE)
ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
/KR/
Page 6 of 6