Central Administrative Tribunal - Lucknow
Nisha Gautam vs M/O Railways on 26 September, 2025
(Reserved on 17.09.2025)
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
LUCKNOW BENCH
LUCKNOW
Pronounced on 26th day of September, 2025
Original Application No.94 of 2023 with
Original Application No.102 of 2023 with
Original Application No.167 of 2023 with
Original Application No.205 of 2023 with
Original Application No.223 of 2023 with
Original Application No. 324 of 2023
PUNIT KUMAR
MISHRA
________________________________________________________
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial)
Hon'ble Mr. Anjani Nandan Sharan, Member (Administrative)
In Original Application No.94 of 2023
1. Nisha Gautam, aged about 30 years, D/o- Sri Shyam Sunder, R/o-
549/105 Bada Barha Alambagh, Lucknow-226005.
2. Jitendra Kumar Gaund, aged about 32 years, S/o Sri Bikav Prasad,
R/o Village Tilauli Post-Sohnag, District-Deoria-274509.
3. Amit Kumar Kushwaha, aged about 36 years, S/o Sri B.P.
Kushwaha, R/o K-468, Vishwa Bank, Barra, Kanpur-27.
4. Akhilesh Kumar, aged about 30 years, S/o Sri Phoolchand, R/o Ram
Nagar Colony Nadarganj, Kanpur Road, Lucknow.
5. Kartikeya Chaturvedi, aged about 29 years, S/o Sri Yamuna Dhar,
R/o Pratapipur (Palhvapur) Post-Gigini Bujurg, District-Gorakhpur,
presently residing at Ram Nagar Colony Industrial Area, Nadarganj,
Amausi, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh-226008.
6. Avdhesh Kumar Tripathi, aged about 32 years, S/o Sri Indra Mani
Tripathi, R/o Village/Post Birapur, District Pratapgarh-230302.
7. Manish Yadav, aged about 30 years, S/o Sri Shiv Bachan Yadav,
R/o Village Banahara Post Dharmdaspur (Nevada)-276304.
Page 1 of 58
8. Shivam Kumar, aged about 32 years, S/o Sri Sushil Kumar, R/o 1-B
Mawaiya Harjinder Nagar, Kanpur-208007, presently residing at-
554/1206 Bheem Nagar, Chhota Barha, Alambagh Lucknow.
......Applicants
Versus
1. Union of India through the Secretary to the Government of India,
Ministry of Railway, New Delhi.
2. Chairman, Railway Board, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi.
3. Railway Recruitment Control Board, Government of India, Ministry of
Railways, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi.
PUNIT KUMAR
MISHRA
4. Railway Recruitment Board, Northern Central Railway, Zone-
Allahabad.
5. Railway Recruitment Board, Northern Eastern Railway, Zone-
Gorakhpur.
6. Railway Recruitment Board, Chandigarh (Northern Railway).
.......Respondents
With
In OA No.167 of 2023
1. Himanshu Kumar, aged about 27 years, S/o- Sri Mahavir Prasad,
R/o- H.No. 418/122, Gadi Peer Khan, Chowk, Lucknow.
2. Shakeel Ali, aged about 31 years, S/o Sri Subedar, R/o
356/340/892, Ashok Vihar, Alamnagar, Lucknow-226017.
3. Shekhar Kumar Gola, aged about 28 years, S/o Sri Nanhey Singh,
R/o Neta Colony, Jayantipur Road, Post Sitapuri Muradabad, U.P.-
244001.
4. Vivekanand Tripathi, aged about 29 years, S/o Sri Ram Ji Tripathi,
R/o H.No. 219-N, Gaytripuram, Nakha No. 1 Post-Basharatpur,
Gorakhpur-273004.
5. Samarjeet, aged about 31 years, S/o Subhash, R/o Village and
Post-Bhaisabazar, Tehsil-Khajni, District-Gorakhpur, U.P.
Page 2 of 58
6. Sagar Kumar, aged about 29 years, S/o Village-Tighara, Post-
Pipiganj, Police Station-Pipiganj, District-Gorakhpur-273165.
7. Ajay Kumar Pandey, aged about 29 years, S/o Sri Rajesh Kumar
Pandey, R/o Village Pipri Thakur, Post-Bargadwa, District-Basti (U.P.)-
272190.
8. Sujeet Kumar Ram, aged about 33 years, S/o Sri Raghubar Ram,
R/o Village Bhikhampur, Post-Middha, District-Ballia (U.P.) 277506.
9. Rekhchandra Yadav, aged about-29 years, S/o- Sri Daya Shankar
Yadav, R/o-Village Atapur, Post-Khailya Semvi, District-Azamgarh U.P.
10. Vikas Gupta, aged about 28 years, S/o- Sri Ganesh Gupta, R/o
Village and Post-Fazilnagar, District-Kushinagar-274401.
PUNIT KUMAR
MISHRA
11. Ram Prakash, aged about 32 years, S/o Sri Brijnath Singh, R/o
Village Jangal Salik Ram, Post-Padri Bazar, Police Station-Sahpur,
Brorakhpur-273014.
12. Ashish Kumar, aged about 28 years, S/o Sri Brindraj Ram, R/o-
Village Bohana, Post-Sema, District-Azamgarh-276131.
13. Sumit Kumar Yadav, aged about 30 years, S/o Sri Ram Avdhesh
Chaudhari, R/o L/32- A N.E.R. LOCO Colony Mawaiya Lucknow-
226004.
14. Ankita Jha, aged about 25 years, S/o Sri Prem Kumar Jha, R/o Q.
No. 583/F Near Pahadi Gate, Jalalipatti, D.L.W. Colony, Varanasi-
221004, U.P.
15. Km Kavita Sagar, aged about 28 years, S/o Sri Surendra Prasad,
R/o New Snow White Dry Cleaners Near Head Post Office Raghav
Nagar Deoria (U.P.) Pin Code-274001.
16. Anjali Verma, aged about 27 years, S/o Sri Bechoo Verma, R/o-
Village Malukahi, Post-Malukahi, District-Kushinagar-274301.
17. Sonu Chaudhari, aged about 30 years, S/o Sri Subash Chaudhari,
R/o Village Agya, Post-Pipraich, District-Gorakhpur, U.P. 273152.
18. Indra Prakash, aged about 33 years, S/o Sri Avadhesh Kumar, R/o
Village Tikariya Chand, Post-Tikariya Saidkhan, District-Barabanki-
225416.
Page 3 of 58
19. Ashok Kumar Yadav, aged about 30 years, S/o late Lallan Yadav,
R/o-Village Rampur Magriw, Post Office-Bhopalpur (West), Police
Station-Reoti, District-Ballia, U.P.-277209.
20. Arun Kumar Yadav, aged about 26 years, S/o Sri Amar Nath
Yadav, R/o- Village Kharikhi, Post-Nawanagar, District-Ballia, U.P.-
221717.
21. Manjit Singh Patel, aged about 31 years, S/o Sri Sharda Prasad,
R/o Village-Khuthan, Post-Sahupuri, District-Chandauli-221009.
22. Akshya Kumar Mourya, aged about 26 years, S/o Sri Ajay Kumar
Mourya, R/o Village and Post-Madhubanim, District-Ballia-277208.
..Applicants
PUNIT KUMAR
MISHRA
Versus
1. Union of India through the Secretary to the Government of India,
Ministry of Railway, New Delhi.
2. Chairman, Railway Board, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi.
3. Railway Recruitment Control Board, Government of India, Ministry of
Railways, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi.
4. Railway Recruitment Board, Gorakhpur.
5. Recruitment Cell North Eastern Railway, CCM, Annex Building,
Railway Road No. 14, Gorakhpur, Uttar Pradesh-273012.
6. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource
Development, Board of Apprenticeship Training (Northern Region),
Kanpur.
......Respondents
With
In O.A NO.102 of 2023
1. Rohit Kumar, aged about 29 years, S/o- Sri Arvind Kumar Maurya,
R/o- H.No. 555-Kha A/13, Bhola Khera, Manas Nagar, Lucknow.
Page 4 of 58
2. Praveen Kumar Gupta, aged about 37 years, S/o- Sri Shivram
Gupta, R/o H.No. 555/Ka-221 Kanausi Manak Nagar, Lucknow.
......Applicants
Versus
1. Union of India through the Secretary to the Government of India,
Ministry of Railway, New Delhi.
2. Chairman, Railway Board, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi.
3. Railway Recruitment Control Board, Government of India, Ministry of
Railways, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi.
4. Railway Recruitment Board, Chandigarh (Northern Railway).
PUNIT KUMAR
MISHRA
5. General Manager Northern Railway Baroda House New Delhi.
6. Divisional Railway Mangar, Ambala, Northern Railway
7. Railway Recruitment Cell Northern Railway Lajpath Nagar-1, New
Delhi-1100024.
......Respondents
With
In OA No.205 of 2023
1. Amit Kumar, aged about 28 years, S/o-Sri Vishambher Nath, R/o-
Village & Post-Dighwat, District-Banda U.P.-210001.
2. Ravindra Kumar Patel, aged about 34 years, S/o-Sri Nanhe Lal
Patel, R/o-Village Jogipur Khas, Post-Ghuripur, District-Jaunpur, U.P.
222201.
3. Anit Kumar, aged about 27 years, S/o-Sri Jai Narayan Kumar, R/o-
H.No.-SA.8/36.5 Tisariya, Pashurampur, Sarnath, Varanasi (U.P.)
221007.
4. Shivam Prajapati, aged about 26 years, S/o-Sri Yogesh Prajapati,
R/o-H-30 Tatya Topey Nagar, Kanpur Nagar-208022.
5. Shailendra Singh, aged about 30 years, S/o-Sri Ashok Kumar, R/o-
D-18 Suryapuram Avas Vikas Nandanpura, Jhansi-284003.
Page 5 of 58
6. Avinash Pal, aged about 29 years, S/o-Sri Ram Kishor Pal, R/o-
Village-Babhani, Post-Dubeypur, Tehsil-Sadar, Police Station-Antu,
District-Pratapgarh, U.P.-230501.
7. Anand Kushwaha, aged about 27 years, S/o-Sri Kailashpati
Kushwaha, R/o-Village-Barahpur, Post-Nandganj, District-Ghazipur,
U.P.-233302.
...Applicants
Versus
1. Union of India through the Secretary to the Government of India,
Ministry of Railway, New Delhi.
PUNIT KUMAR
2. Chairman, Railway Board, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi.
MISHRA
3. Railway Recruitment Control Board, Government of India, Ministry of
Railways, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi.
4. Railway Recruitment Board Allahabad.
5. Railway Recruitment Cell, North Central Railway, Balmiki Chauraha,
Nawab Usuf Road, Near Balaipur Colony, Civil Lines, Prayagraj.
6. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource
Development, Board of Apprenticeship Training (Northern Region),
Kanpur.
......Respondents
With
In OA No.223 of 2023
1. Ashish Kumar Yadav, aged about 36 years, S/o-Sri Ganga Krishan
Yadav, R/o-Village Piprauli, Post-Ambedkar Nagar University,
Utrathiya, District-Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh-226025.
2. Rajesh Kumar, aged about 32 years, S/o Sri Ram Shankar, R/o-
Village Dhanapur, Rasoolpur Gunda, Distrcit-Raebareli, Uttar Pradesh-
229127.
3. Vivek Singh, aged about 32 years, S/o Sri Amar Singh, R/o Village
Khumaripur Post Harrai, District-Hardoi, Uttar Pradesh-241001.
Page 6 of 58
4. Jitendra Ram, aged about 28 years, S/o Sri Vimal Ram, R/o Village
Post-Nagsar Newaju Rai, Police Station-Nagsar Halt, District-Ghazipur,
U.P.-232326.
5. Neeraj Kumar Nirmal, aged about 38 years, S/o Sri Ram Bharose
Nirmal, R/o 14/139 Kanchan Nagar 'A' Shuklaganj Unnao.
6. Law Kumar, aged about 30 years, S/o Sri Ramjee Prasad, R/o
Village Mohaddiganj, P.O.+P.S. Sasaram, District-Rohtas Pin Code-
821115, State-Bihar.
7. Arvinder Singh, aged about 31 years, S/o Sri Baghel Singh, R/o 199,
3, Guru Ram Das Nagar, Kot Khalsa, Amritsar-1, Amritsar, State
Punjab-143002.
PUNIT KUMAR
MISHRA 8. Vikky, aged about 36 years, S/o Sri Kanhiya Lal, R/o 551 Gha/26,
Govind Nagar Natkhera Road Alambagh, Lucknow, State U.P. Pin
Code-226005.
9. Pratiksha Dixit, aged about 30 years, D/o Sri Nirmal Kumar Dixit, R/o
77/22 Block No. 8, Govind Nagar, Kanpur Nagar, U.P.-208006.
10. Rahul Kumar Mishra, aged about 32 years, S/o Sri Rajeev Kumar
Mishra, R/o Village & Post Devkali, Tehsil-Powayana, District-
Shahjahanpur, State, U.P. Pin Code-242042.
11. Mukesh Kumar, aged about 32 years, S/o Sri Krishna Kumar, R/o
459, Near Dr. Ambedkar Inter College, Topkhana, Jalaun, Uttar
Pradesh-285123.
12. Pooja Singh, aged about 28 years, D/o Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh,
R/o Pateeth Kunjalpur, District Gonda, Uttar Pradesh-271302.
......Applicant
Versus
1. Union of India through the Secretary to the Government of India,
Ministry of Railway, New Delhi.
2. Chairman, Railway Board, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi.
3. Railway Recruitment Control Board, Government of India, Ministry of
Railways, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi.
Page 7 of 58
4. Railway Recruitment Board, Chandigarh.
5. Railway Recruitment Board, Ahmedabad, Gujrat.
6. Railway Recruitment Cell, North Eastern Railway, CCM Annex
Building Railway Road, No. 14 Gorakhpur.
7. Railway Recruitment Cell, Western Railway, Parcel Depot, Prem Ji
Marg, Grant Road (East) Mumbai-400007.
8. Railway Recruitment Cell, Northern Railway, Lajpat Nagar, New
Delhi-110024.
9. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource
Development, Board of Apprenticeship Training (Northern Region),
PUNIT KUMAR
Kanpur.
MISHRA
.....Respondents
With
In OA No.324 of 2023
Poonam Yadav, aged about 28 years, D/o Sri Surendra Yadav, R/o M-
40 Sector-D, L.D.A Colony, Kanpur Road, Lucknow and permanent
resident of 846/4-Kha, Hardol Marg, Nainagarh, Nagra, Jhansi,
..Applicant
Versus
1. Union of India through the Secretary to the Government of India,
Ministry of Railway, New Delhi.
2. Chairman, Railway Board, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi.
3. Railway Recruitment Control Board, Government of India, Ministry of
Railways, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi.
4. Railway Recruitment Board Allahabad.
5. Railway Recruitment Cell, North Central Railway, Balmiki Chauraha,
Nawab Usuf Road, Near Balaipur Colony, Civil Lines, Prayagraj.
6. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource
Development, Board of Apprenticeship Training (Northern Region),
Kanpur.
Page 8 of 58
.........Respondents
ORDER
By Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial):-
Heard Shri Shachindra Pratap Singh, assisted by Shri Niraj Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the applicants in all the cases and Shri Brijesh Kumar Shukla, Smt. Prayagmati Gupta, Shri Rajendra Singh, Shri Shyam Lal Mishra, Shri Moti Chanda Yadav and Shri Naveen Chandra Upadhyay, learned counsels for the respondents at the time of hearing in respective cases.
PUNIT KUMAR 2. The facts as well as prayers of O.A. Nos.102 of 2023, O.A. MISHRA No.167 of 2023, O.A. No.205 of 2023, O.A. No.223 of 2023 and O.A. No. 324 of 2023 are same and similar, but the facts of O.A No.94 of 2023 are slightly different and as such, all Original Applications are being disposed of by this common order.
3. The O.A. Nos.102 of 2023, by the applicants, who are two in numbers, O.A. No.167 of 2023 by the applicants, who are twenty two in numbers, O.A. No.205 of 2023 by the applicants, who are seven in numbers, O.A. No.223 of 2023 by the applicants, who are twelve in numbers and O.A. No. 324 of 2023 by the applicant, who is one in numbers have been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 for the following the reliefs:-
I. Issue a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the applicants for appointment as per the judgment and order rendered by the Hon‟ble High Court, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow in Writ Petition No.626 (S/B) of 2009 on 14.05.2010 as per the Circular dated 02.12.2010 issued by the Railway Board and the letter dated 28.04.2022.
II. Issue a direction to the respondents to consider appointment of the applicants on their respective post forthwith as they had already qualified and declared successful in the final examination including in the medical examination on the Group-D post.Page 9 of 58
III. To issue a direction to the respondents to allow the applicants to join their posts forthwith and be paid salary regularly, IV. Issue a direction thereby setting aside the clause-6.0 and 12.1 of the Advertisement /Notification -01/2019 to the extent it debars the Diploma Holders/Applicants from selection. (amended vide order dated 15.04.2024) V. Any other order or direction as the Hon‟ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
VI. Award the cost of the Original Application.
3.1 However, the Original Application No.94/2023 by the applicants, who are eight in numbers under Section 19 of the Central PUNIT KUMAR Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 has been filed for the following MISHRA reliefs:
I. Issue order or direction to the respondents to give marks/ weightage of 1/3 against the grade obtained by the applicants i.e. awarded by Board of Apprenticeship Training, Northern Region, Kanpur, Government of India, Ministry of Home Resource Development as per the UG Guidelines as same is being given to the Trade Apprentices on their NCVT Marks as per the Notification dated 18.01.2023. II. Issue a direction to the respondents to recalculate the final marks of the applicants after adding their grade as per UG Guidelines in numerical and thereafter declare their result.
III. Issue a direction to the respondents to resume the verification of documents of the applicants forthwith after doing necessary exercise before the cut-off date i.e. 31.03.2023 and 15.04.2023 IV. Issue a direction thereby setting aside the clause- 6.0 and 12.1 of the Advertisement /Notification -
01/2019 to the extent it debars the Diploma Holders/Applicants from selection. (amended vide order dated 15.04.2024) V. Issue a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the applicants for appointment as per the judgment and order rendered by the Hon‟ble High Court, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow in Writ Petition No.626 (S/B) of 2009 on 14.05.2010 as per the Circular dated 02.12.2010 issued by the Railway Board.
VI. Any other order or direction as the Hon‟ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
Page 10 of 58 VII. Award the cost of the Original Application.
4. The brief facts as apparent from the record are that the applicant are diploma holders from the Board of Technical Education of Uttar Pradesh and also gone apprenticeship Training under the Apprenticeship Act, 1961 with the Railway.
4.1 An advertisement was floated by the respondent-3 being RRC No.01/2019 for appointment of various posts in Level -1 of VII Pay Matrix (Group-D post) on 23.02.2019, which is to be carried out in all over India by the different Railway Boards/Zones. The total PUNIT KUMAR MISHRA vacancies, which have been earmarked for the CCAA (Course Completed Act Apprenticeship ) is 20,734 and same has to be filled by an apprentice, who trained in Railway Establishment only and educational qualification was mentioned, which reads as under:-
6.0 Educational Qualifications:-
Candidates should have requisite minimum educational qualification indicated for posts in Annexure-A of this CEN from recognized Board/NCVT/SCVT as on the closing date for online registration. Those awaiting results of the final examination of the prescribed minimum educational qualification should not apply.
Note Diploma/Degree in Engineering will not be accepted in lieu of Course Completed Act Apprenticeship/ITI also, Graduate Act Apprentice will not be accepted in lieu of Course Completed Act Apprenticeship.
12.0 Railway Act Apprentices 12.1 The vacancies to be filled from among the Course Completed Act Apprentices (CCAAs) trained in Railway Establishments and possessing National Apprenticeship Certificate (NAC) granted by National Council of Vocational Training (NCVT) is separately indicated in the vacancy table. This will be in the nature of horizontal reservation as in the case of persons with benchmark disabilities (PwBDs) and Ex-servciemen. However, unlike in the case of PsBDs, there will be no carry forward of the unfilled vacancies to be filled by this mechanism. In case of shortfall, the vacant slots shall be filled from others in the combined merit list.Page 11 of 58
4.2 In pursuance thereto, the applicants applied online for the aforesaid posts and applicants were also issued in their favour for appearing in the recruitment process.
4.3 Subsequently, a Corrigendum /amendment was made by the respondents on 22.04.2022, by which, the respondents introduced 12.4, 12.5 and new Note (3) under Para 14.2 of the Advertisement, which reads under:-
Item No. To be read as /amended as
Para 12.0 Railway Add new Para 12.4
Act Apprentices The Course Completed Act Apprentices will be
(page 17, 18 of given due weightage for the marks obtained in
PUNIT KUMAR
MISHRA
detailed CEN National Council of Vocational Training (NCVT)
examination such that one third of the marks in preparation of the final merit list after conduct of CBT shall be based on the marks obtained in National Council of Vocational Training (NCVT) Examination Para 12.0 Railway Add New para 12.5 Act Apprentices The Course Completed Act Apprentices will be (Page 17, 18) & exempted from Physical Efficiency Test.
Para 14.2 Physical Efficiency Test Add New Note (3) under para 14.2 (PET) (page 19, 20 The Course Completed Act Apprentices will be of detailed CEN exempted from Physical Efficiency Test. 4.4 Thereafter, the portal were opened to fill up the Grades and all the applicants had uploaded their Grade Marks. Thereafter, all the applicants appeared in the Computer Based Test, which was conducted online mode and the result was published on 27.12.2022, by which applicants O.A. Nos.102 of 2023, O.A. No.167 of 2023, O.A. No.205 of 2023, O.A. No.223 of 2023 and O.A. No. 324 of 2023 were declared successful on the basis of their marks obtained in Computer Based Test without adding their Grade Marks awarded in the Apprentice Course as the applicants are Diploma Holders, whereas Grade Marks have been added in case of other Trade Apprentices /NCVT Candidates. However, applicants of O.A. No.94/2023 were not Page 12 of 58 declared successful as the Apprentice Course Grade were not calculated along with the marks of CBT Test due to the amendment dated 22.04.2022 as the CCAA will be given due weightage for the marks obtained in National Council of Vocational Training (NCVT). Hence, O.A. No.94/2023 has been preferred.
4.5 Since the applicants of O.A. Nos.102 of 2023, O.A. No.167 of 2023, O.A. No.205 of 2023, O.A. No.223 of 2023 and O.A. No. 324 of 2023 respectively were declared successful on the basis of their marks obtained in Computer Based Test without adding their Apprentice Course Grade and they were called for their document PUNIT KUMAR MISHRA verifications and medical examination held on 21.02.2023 and 22.02.2023, wherein they were declared successful. 4.6 Thereafter, no appointment letters were issued to the applicants and as such, the applicants of O.A. Nos.102 of 2023, O.A. No.167 of 2023, O.A. No.205 of 2023, O.A. No.223 of 2023 and O.A. No. 324 of 2023 contacted the respondent-5 on 13.04.2023, it was informed by the office of respondent-5 orally that the applicants were not eligible and they would not be considered for appointment, but no written letters were given to the applicants without assigning any reasons. Hence, O.A. Nos.102 of 2023, O.A. No.167 of 2023, O.A. No.205 of 2023, O.A. No.223 of 2023 and O.A. No. 324 of 2023 have been filed.
5. On the other hand, counter reply was filed in all the cases. In counter reply of respondent-1 to 3 & 5 of O.A. No.167/2023, which is leading case in all as well as O.A. Nos.102 of 2023, O.A. No.205 of 2023, O.A. No.223 of 2023 and O.A. No. 324 of 2023, it has been stated that the applicants could not be selected due to low merit as they did not fulfil the criteria CCAA. The applicants are aware of the Page 13 of 58 terms and conditions of the Advertisement and notices issued from time to time. In para 12.0 of the Advertisement, it has been clearly stipulated that vacancies to be filled up from amongst the Course Completed Act Apprentices (CCAAs) trained in Railway Establishment and possessing National Apprenticeship Certificate (NAC) granted NCVT. Further Clause 12.2 provides that a candidates shall be considered to have completed the Act Apprenticeship Training only, if they had appeared in the NCVT Examination before the last date of registration. However, the candidate should submit the NAC Certificate issued by NCVT during document verification, failing which he/she PUNIT KUMAR MISHRA shall not be eligible for reservation as CCAA (trade in Railway Establishment ) under this provision.
5.1 A Corrigendum/amendment was also issued on 22.04.2022, which are already quoted hereinabove. For CCAAs trained in Railway Establishment, an important Notice was issued on 08.09.2022 and the silent feature of the said Notice is reproduced hereinbelow:-
(i) Course Completed Act Apprentice (CCAAs) trained in Railway Establishment shall be given due weightage of marks obtained in their NCVT examination in preparation of final merit list after conduct of CBT.
(ii) A link was made live from 22.07.2022 to 10.08.2022 for CCAAs, trained in Railway Establishment to upload their details of marks pertaining to NCVT Examination
(iii) A modification link live from 12.09.2022 to 13.09.2022 was also provided to the candidates who have declared their qualification as ITI/NAC or CCAA in the application form, but failed to tick the column of being CCAA from Railways for uploading their marks pertaining to NCVT Examination.
(iv) If the candidates fails to fill their NCVT marks, weightage of marks shall not be given to them.
5.2 Thereafter, an Addendum No.2 dated 06.12.2022 was issued, by which it has been stated as under:-
Continued from last Para (Para No.7 ) of Addendum No.1.Page 14 of 58
8) In order to finalize the Merit based on Percentile Score as mentioned above it is necessary to include only those candidates in the Merit who have secured Minimum Percentage of Marks for eligibility in various categories: UR-40%, EWS-40%, OBC (Non creamy layer)-30%, SC-30%, ST-30% as per qualifying criteria given in Para 14.1 of CEN No. RRC-01/2019. Para 15.0 states that "Short listing of Candidates for various stages shall be based on the "Normalized Marks" obtained by them whenever CBT is conducted in multiple sessions for the same syllabus".
9) For this, the Percentile Score of each candidate will be converted into "Normalized Marks" by interpolation of raw marks into "Base Shift" by using standard mathematical formula of interpolation for the purpose of deciding minimum qualifying marks as well as giving weightage in marks to CCAA candidates.
5.3 All the applicants are diploma holders, who had undergone Apprenticeship Training in the Railway Establishment and have PUNIT KUMAR MISHRA obtained certificate of proficiency with Grade issued by the Board of Apprenticeship Training (Northern Region), Kanpur, an organization under the Ministry of Human Resource Development and as such, they were not given weightage of marks as per para 12.4 of the Advertisement and Notice dated 08.09.2022 and also 20 % of the vacancies were filled giving preference to Course Completed Act Apprentices (CCAAs) Trained in Railway Establishment and possessing NAC granted by NCVT.
5.4 For CCAAs candidates, a merit list was prepared based on 1/3 weightage of marks of NCVT marks and 2/3rd marks of CBT exam and for non-CCAAs candidates merit list is prepared only on the basis of marks obtained in CBT examination. The candidates, who have undergone Apprenticeship by the Railway Establishment and having NCVT marks are only eligible for weightage of 1/3 marks of the marks assigned by NCVT for the applicants, having diploma qualification, there is no provision of NCVT marks and they only get grades for this Apprenticeship training and as such, they are not entitled for weightage of 1/3rd marks as they are not having NCVT marks. Page 15 of 58 5.5 As per clause 6 of the Advertisement, diploma /Degree will not be accepted in lieu of Course Completed Act Apprentice. The applicants merely completed the apprenticeship training does not entitle any candidate for appointment in Railways, if they do not fulfil other eligibility criteria. The applicants were allowed in the CBT Examination, Document verification and Medical Examination only on the basis of their online form, which they have filled provisionally.
6. A counter affidavit has also been filed on behalf of the respondent-4 in O.A. No.94/2023, wherein it has been stated that the applicants are Diploma Holders and are the candidates of RRC PUNIT KUMAR MISHRA 01/2019. The applicants are aware of the terms and conditions of the said Employment Notice and notice issued from time to time. The applicants are having no NCVT marks, therefore, the question for granting weightages of marks does not arise and as such, the merit list of these candidates is prepared solely on the basis of written test marks only. For CCAAs candidates merit list was prepared based on 1/3rd weightage of marks of NCVT marks and 2/3rd marks of CBT (written) marks and for non-CCAAs candidates merit list is prepared only on the basis of marks obtained in CBT examination. The candidates, who have undergone Apprenticeship by the Railway Establishment and having NCVT marks are only eligible for weightage of 1/3 marks of the marks assigned by NCVT. The applicants are having Diploma, for which there is no provision of NCVT marks. They only get grades for this apprenticeship training. Hence, original Application is liable to be dismissed.
7. A rejoinder affidavit has also been filed by the applicants in all the cases, wherein it has been stated that the respondents are interpreting the para 6.0 arbitrarily and against the rules. The Govt. of Page 16 of 58 India/Railway Board had issued a Master Circular No.8/2002, RBE No.119/2002 dated 22.07.2002 under the Apprentices Act, 1961, wherein at 4, it has been stated as under:-
4. Types of Act Apprentices engaged on the Railways There are three categories of apprentices.
(i) Trade apprentices-either fresh candidate or M qualified candidates;
(ii) Technician apprentices (Diploma Holders); and
(iii) Graduate Engineer apprentices,
In the aforesaid circular in paragraph-19.2.1 the procedure for recruitment for various post has been given which is being reproduced below;
19.2.1 PUNIT KUMAR MISHRA For recruitment to the posts of:-
Skilled Artisans, Group 'C' posts for which Engineering Degree and Engineering Diploma are the qualification, Diesel Electric Assistants, Group 'D' posts other things being equal between two candidates the candidate who is course completed Act Apprentice trained in Railway Establishment will be given preference over the candidate who is not such an apprentice. However, there would be no change in the procedure of the recruitment and the selection for recruitment will be in accordance with the merits of the eligible candidates.
(Board's letter No. E(NG)II/96/RR-1/34 dated 26.8.96, 13.7.99 and 6.4.2000 & E(NG)II/99RR-1/11 dated 24.8.2000) 7.1 Therefore, from the aforesaid provision, it is crystal clear that as per the own case of the respondents, the statutory rules framed under the Apprenticeship Act, 1961 by the Railways itself and subsequent circulars i.e. Circular dated 02.12.2010, it is evident that the applicants are Course Completed Act, Apprentices. Thus they cannot be excluded from the reservation quota of 20% which has been earmarked for the Course Completed Act Apprentices in the ongoing selection process.Page 17 of 58
7.2 The applicants are Course Completed Act Apprenticeship under the Apprentice Act, 1961 and undergone the Apprenticeship Training in the Railway Establishment. During the recruitment process, a clarification had been sought from the Hon'ble Railway Minister by one Hon'ble Member of Parliament, Prof. Pradeep Bhattacharya vide letter dated 04.09.2021, in which it has been categorically mentioned that the persons who are holding Diploma and Degree and undergone Railway Course Completed Act, Apprenticeship Course in 2017 have not been engaged by the Indian Railway as per circular No. 01 of 2010 and RBE No. 113/2012. The Hon'ble Railway Minister vide letter dated PUNIT KUMAR MISHRA 28.04.2022 (Annexure No. A-4) had categorically replied as under;
Kindly refer to your letter no. PB/MP/21-22/113 dated 04.09.2021, regarding the recruitment matter of degree and diploma apprentices.
The matter has been examined. Railways obligation under the Apprentices Act, 1961 is limited to providing training only. However, the Course Completed Act Apprentice can apply for Level-1 category exams where a preference upto 20% is kept for them.
7.3 Thus, from above, it is evident that the applicants are being discriminated and precluded from appointment in a most arbitrary and illegal manner. It is admitted case that the applicants fall within the meaning of Course Completed Act Apprentices under Apprenticeship, 1961 and had undergone training under Sections-21 and 22 of the same. The railway has taken a hostile stand against them though, the entire controversy was concluded by the High Court in Writ Petition No. 626 (S/B) of 2009 (Jaideep Kumar Shukla and others Vs. Union of India and others). It has become habit of Railway to act against statutory rules, because it is settled principle of the law that any recruitment process could not violate the statutory rules and in the present case the provisions of the Sections-21 and 22 of the Page 18 of 58 Apprenticeship Act, 1961 is being violated along-with the provisions of the Master Circular No. 08/2002 dated 22.07.2002 with impunity.
8. A supplementary affidavit has been filed from the side of the respondents on 01.07.2025 in O.A. 167/2023, wherein it has been stated that the applicants had applied under CCAA category pursuant to the Centralized Employment Notice No. CEN RRC-01/2019 dated 23.02.2019, but they could not be selected due to their ineligibility under the specific criterion of CCAA, which was a prerequisite for certain posts. As per Clause 6.0 of the Advertisement, it is crystal clear that only those candidates who have acquired the prescribed minimum PUNIT KUMAR MISHRA educational qualifications on or before the closing date of online registration are eligible to apply. Furthermore, the clause categorically bars candidates who are merely awaiting results from applying, thereby reinforcing the requirement of having completed the qualification in full at the time of application. The "NOTE" appended to Clause 6.0 holds particular significance as it provides necessary clarification regarding equivalency and ineligibility. It expressly states that:
Diploma or Degree in Engineering shall not be considered a substitute for the Course Completed Act Apprenticeship or ITI, which are the prescribed qualifications under Annexure-A. Additionally, even a Graduate Act Apprentice will not be treated as eligible in place of a Course Completed Act Apprentice.
8.1 This clarification eliminates any ambiguity regarding alternate technical qualifications and underscores that the recruitment process is specifically tailored to favor individuals possessing skills and training obtained through Act Apprenticeship or ITI courses recognized by NCVT/SCVT. By setting such precise standards, the Railway Page 19 of 58 Recruitment Cells have maintained the integrity of the selection process and ensured uniformity in eligibility across applicants.
8.2 As per advertisement, the Minimum Educational Qualification prescribed for the advertised posts has been clearly stipulated. The said annexure categorically outlines the requisite qualification criteria that an applicant must possess in order to be considered eligible for selection. The relevant portion of the Employment Notice explicitly sets forth the educational standards, including any specific certifications or technical qualifications, thereby leaving no ambiguity regarding the eligibility requirements for the posts PUNIT KUMAR MISHRA in question. Minimum Educational Qualification for the posts reads as follows:
"10th pass (OR) ITI from institutions recognized by NCVT/SCVT (or) equivalent (OR) National Apprenticeship Certificate (NAC) granted by NCVT"
8.3 The paragraph 12 of the Advertisement deals specifically with the eligibility and reservation provisions applicable to Course Completed Act Apprentices (CCAAs), particularly those trained in Railway Establishments. The provisions of para 12 of the Advertisement is significant in that it establishes a distinct category of horizontal reservation for those who have undergone and completed Act Apprenticeship training within Railway Establishments and who possess a valid National Apprenticeship Certificate (NAC) granted by the National Council of Vocational Training (NCVT). The NCVT, a statutory body under the Ministry of Skill Development and Entrepreneurship, is the apex organization responsible for the development and coordination of vocational training standards in India. The NAC, issued by NCVT, serves as a nationally recognized Page 20 of 58 certificate certifying that a candidate has successfully completed the practical and theoretical components of an Apprenticeship Program under the Apprentices Act, 1961.
8.4 Clause 12.2 of the Advertisement further clarifies that a candidate will be treated as having completed Act Apprenticeship only if they appeared in the NCVT examination on or before the last date of online registration (12.04.2019). Even if the result was pending at the time of application, the candidate would still be considered, provided they produce the NAC certificate during the document verification stage. Failure to submit the NAC at that stage would render the PUNIT KUMAR MISHRA candidate ineligible for the CCAA reservation. This stipulation underscores the non-negotiable requirement of having formal certification (NAC) issued by NCVT as proof of completion of Act Apprenticeship training, especially for claiming benefits under the reservation quota designated for CCAAs trained in Railway Establishments. The provision thus ensures that only genuinely trained apprentices, whose competencies have been duly certified through nationally recognized standards, are allowed to claim reservation under this category.
8.5 The National Trade Certificate (NTC) is a formal credential awarded by the National Council of Vocational Training (NCVT) upon successful completion of training and passing of the All India Trade Test under the Craftsmen Training Scheme (CTS). This certificate serves as official recognition of the candidate's proficiency in a designated trade, affirming both theoretical knowledge and practical skill acquired through an NCVT-recognized Industrial Training Institute (ITI). Possession of the NTC is a significant indicator of the candidate's vocational competence and enhances employability in both Page 21 of 58 government and private sectors, particularly in technical roles requiring certified skill sets.
8.6 The Trade Apprentices received due weightage for their marks obtained from the National Council of Vocational Training (NCVT) as per the notification dated 18.01.2023, such normalization and numerical consideration of marks have not been extended to Diploma Holders who underwent Apprenticeship training in Railway establishments as they were awarded grades instead of marks. It is pertinent to clarify that the applicants, being Diploma Holders, have successfully completed Apprenticeship training in Railway PUNIT KUMAR MISHRA establishments and have been issued Certificates of Proficiency, which specify grades rather than numerical marks, by the Board of Apprenticeship Training (Northern Region), Kanpur. The recruitment policy explicitly grants Course Completed Act Apprentices (CCAAs) due weightage for their NCVT examination marks, such that one-third of the marks in the preparation of the final merit list after the Computer Based Test (CBT) are to be based on the NCVT marks. This provision is clearly outlined in the Detailed Centralized Employment Notice and further emphasized in the notice dated 08.09.2022, which mandates that candidates failing to submit their NCVT marks will forfeit this weightage.
8.7 Additionally, the Railway Board's communication dated 21.06.2016 governs the recruitment methodology for posts in Pay Band-1 (Rs. 5200-20200) with Grade Pay Rs. 1800/-, expressly provides that 20% of vacancies shall be filled by giving preference to Course Completed Act Apprentices trained in Railway establishments and possessing the National Apprenticeship Certificate (NAC) issued by NCVT. Since the applicants possesses Certificate of Proficiency Page 22 of 58 and not National Apprenticeship Certificate issued by NCVT. Therefore, they could not get their name in the panel. They do not fulfill the requisite criteria for CCAA candidates of having National Apprenticeship Certificate (NAC) issued by NCVT. 8.8 For NCVT apprenticeship certificate, after completion of the apprenticeship training, apprentices become eligible to appear in the All India Trade Test (ATT) for Apprentices conducted by the National Council for Vocational Training (NCVT). Candidates who pass this examination are awarded the National Apprenticeship Certificate (NAC), a credential recognized nationwide as a higher qualification PUNIT KUMAR MISHRA than the National Trade Certificate (NTC). This certificate is awarded irrespective of whether the candidate has undergone a two-year ITI training followed by one year of apprenticeship, or a direct three-year apprenticeship training in trades such as Fitter, Electrician, or others. The National Apprenticeship Certificate (NAC) issued by NCVT serves as a professional qualification for apprentices seeking employment in their respective trades. Additionally, Graduate Apprentices, Technician Apprentices, and Technician (Vocational) Apprentices are awarded Certificates of Proficiency by the Department of Secondary and Higher Education, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India, upon satisfactory completion of their training. These certificates signify successful completion of training and hold due recognition in their fields. Therefore, the apprenticeship training scheme under the Apprentices Act, administered and certified by recognized authorities such as NCVT and RDAT, ensures that candidates are equipped with both theoretical knowledge and practical skills, thereby facilitating their effective absorption into the industrial workforce. Page 23 of 58 8.9 The Railway Recruitment Cell, North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur, vide its letter bearing No. Ka/NER/RRC/Court Case dated 28.05.2025, addressed to the Regional Director, Regional Directorate of Skill Development & Entrepreneurship (RDSDE), Ministry of Skill Development & Entrepreneurship, Government of India, NSTI Campus, Kanpur, sought clarification regarding the equivalence of the Certificate of Proficiency issued to diploma holder apprentices, with the National Apprenticeship Certificate (NAC) granted by the National Council for Vocational Training (NCVT), specifically for the purpose of eligibility under the Course Completed Act Apprentices (CCAA) category in PUNIT KUMAR MISHRA terms of the of the Advertisement. A sample of the 'Certificate of Proficiency' issued to one of the applicant and a sample of National Apprenticeship Certificate (NAC) granted by NCVT having Certificate No. 190606800022765 to a candidate, who was empanelled under CCAA category were enclosed along with the said letter dated 28.05.2025.
8.10 In response thereto, the Regional Directorate of Skill Development & Entrepreneurship, Kanpur, vide its letter No. AP- 18/2/2025-0/0 RDSDE KANPUR (E-70163)/2551 dated 02/03.06.2025, clarified that the Certificate of Proficiency in question was issued by the Board of Apprenticeship Training (BOAT), Northern Region, Kanpur, which functions under the administrative control of the Ministry of Education, Government of India, and not by the NCVT. It was further clarified that the National Apprenticeship Certificate (NAC) is issued exclusively by the NCVET/DGT in respect of candidates trained in 261 designated trades, as recognized under the provisions of the Apprenticeship Act, 1961. The said clarification makes it abundantly clear that the Certificate of Proficiency awarded to diploma/degree Page 24 of 58 holder apprentices does not fall within the scope of designated trades for which NAC is granted.
8.11 Additionally, it was specifically stated by RDSDE Kanpur that Diploma or Degree holder apprentices are not eligible to appear in the All India Trade Test (AITT) conducted by DGT/NCVET, which is a statutory precondition for issuance of the NAC. Consequently, such diploma holders, who undergone apprenticeship training in Railway establishments and are awarded the Certificate of Proficiency by BOAT are not eligible for the NAC, nor can their certificate be considered equivalent to the NAC for the purposes of CCAA category recruitment. PUNIT KUMAR MISHRA The two certifications are distinct in legal character, issued under separate authorities and Ministries, and cater to different categories of apprentices under the Apprenticeship Act, 1961. Therefore, as per the official clarification received, a holder of a certificate of Proficiency issued by BOAT is not entitled to be treated at par with a CCAA candidate holding a valid NAC from NCVT.
8.12 Further, the Railway Recruitment Cell, North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur, vide its letter bearing No. Ka/NER/RRC/Court Case dated 26.05.2025, addressed to the Principal/Basic Training Centre, Mechanical Workshop, North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur requested to inform his/her authority to issue the National Apprenticeship Certificate in favour of the applicants and a copy of the National Apprenticeship Certificate (Reg. No. AZ/0317/T/5503/2017) issued in favour of Sonu Chaudhari; i.e. applicant no. 17 was enclosed with the letter dated 26.05.2025.
8.13 In reply, Assistant Workshop Manager-III (Principal/Workshop Training Centre), Mechanical Workshop, Gorakhpur vides its letter No. M/W.T.C./04 dated 05.06.2025 clarified Page 25 of 58 that the National Apprenticeship Certificate in question was a training certificate in which it was shown that the apprentice has done training within a certain period. This is not a certified NAC certificate. It was further clarified that apprenticeship certificate to the Degree/Diploma holders are issued by Board of Apprenticeship Training, Kanpur in form of Certificate of Proficiency while for Act Apprentice ITI, NAC is issued by Directorate General of Training (DGT), New Delhi after qualifying the All India Trade Test (AITT).
8.14 It is pertinent to clarify that the applicants in the present matters do not fall within the category of candidates, who have PUNIT KUMAR MISHRA undergone the prescribed apprenticeship training under the Apprentices Act, nor have they been awarded the National Apprenticeship Certificate (NAC) issued by the National Council for Vocational Training (NCVT). The applicants hold diploma qualifications and have only obtained grades for their apprenticeship training, without any corresponding NCVT marks or certificates that qualify them for the weightage or benefits accorded to Course Completed Act Apprentices (CCAAs) in terms of Advertisement.
9. In reply, objection affidavit has been filed by the applicants, wherein, it has been stated that it is an admitted position that the applicants are diploma holders, who had undergone apprenticeship training under Railway is also known as designation of CCAA, otherwise eligible for giving appointment on group-D posts, if they apply under other category in which they belong i.e. General, OBC and SC/ST, except under the category of Course Completed Act Apprenticeship. The corrigendum dated 22.04.2022 had been introduced after elapse of 03 years and 10 months due to ulterior motive, by which the respondents introduced corrigendum and Page 26 of 58 amendment in examination, which was earlier only CBT, which is still remain intact for other categories of candidates except candidates under the CCAA because most of the candidates, who are having ITI/NAC and marks pertaining to NCVT examination had obtained 0 marks in CBT as no specific denial has been made in counter affidavit. 9.1 The counter affidavit/supplementary affidavit are completely silent about the order passed by this Tribunal dated 11.11.2023 as the respondents failed to bring on record the alleged Committee's Report as directed by this Tribunal. CCAA under Apprenticeship Act, 1961 has already been defined by the respondents PUNIT KUMAR MISHRA themselves in Master Circular 08/2002.
9.2 The Apprenticeship Act, 1961 had been enacted by the Parliament to provide for Regulation and Control of Training Apprentices and for matters connected therewith. Chapter-I of the Definition of Clause-2 (aa), reads as under:-
„Apprentice‟ means a person, who is undergoing apprenticeship training (****) in pursuance of a contractual of apprenticeship.
Section-3 of the Apprenticeship Act, 1961 qualification for being engaged as an apprentice is given, which reads as under:-
3. Qualifications for being engaged as an apprentice.-A person shall not be qualified for being engaged as an apprentice to undergo apprenticeship training in any designated trade, unless he-
24[(a) is not less than fourteen years of age, and for designated trades related to hazardous industries, not less than eighteen years of age; and]
(b) satisfies such standards of education and physical fitness as may be prescribed: Provided that different standards may be prescribed in relation to apprenticeship training in different designated trades25 [and for different categories of apprentices).
9.3 Master Circular No.08/2002, which has been introduced by the Railway for training purpose deals with the types of apprentices engaged in Railway.
Page 27 of 58 9.4 Therefore, the aforesaid provision, it is crystal clear that as per the own case of the respondents the Statutory Rules framed under the Apprenticeship Act, 1961 by the Railways itself and subsequent circulars i.e. Circular dated 02.12.2010, by which it is evident that the Applicants/Diploma Holders are Course Completed Act Apprentices, thus, they cannot be excluded from the reservation quota of 20% which has been earmarked for the Course Completed Act Apprentices in the ongoing selection process. 9.5 In 2004, when the controversy started and diploma holder had been deprived from being engaged on group-D posts as PUNIT KUMAR MISHRA "substitute" under administrative exigency powers general manager in the year, 2004, then O.A. Nos. 569 of 2006, 148 of 2005, 509 of 2004 and O.A No. 523 of 2004 was disposed of by the Hon'ble Tribunal vide judgment and order dated 20.01.2009 after it had been remanded by the Hon'ble High Court when the writ petitions were allowed and matter was directed to be considered on merit in Writ Petition No.36 (S/B) of 2005. Accordingly, the Tribunal has referred the matter to the Railway Board to clarify the Phrase 'Course Completed Apprentices'. 9.6 Thereafter, the aforesaid orders were challenged before the High Court in Writ A No.626/(S/B) of 2009, which was allowed and a Policy Decision was taken by the Railway Board during the pendency of writ petition, which was quashed by the Writ court vide its order dated 14.05.2010.
9.7 The Board vide its letter dated 02.12.2010 (RBE No.171/2010) has clarified that Diploma /Degree Holders trained under the Apprentices Act, 1961 (as amended from time to time) in Railway Establishment can also be considered (similar to ITI etc. Trained Act Apprentices engaged as substitutes) for engagement as substitutes Page 28 of 58 Group D posts within the General Managers' powers administrative exigencies subject to their fulfilment of the extant instructions prescribed for such engagement.
Argument of the learned counsel of the applicants in all the cases:-
10. Learned counsel for the applicant assailed the Clause 6.0 and 12.1 of the Advertisement/Notification No.01/2019 to the extent it debars the Diploma Holders/applicants from selection on the following grounds:-
PUNIT KUMAR MISHRA
a) Initially, the mode of exam has been prescribed as CBT and total vacancies, which have been earmarked for the CCAA is 20,734 and same has to be filled by the apprentices trained in Railway Establishment only, but the same was changed later on during the midst of selection process under CCAA vacancies.
b) As per Clause 5.1 (9) of the Advertisement 'CCAA' applying for the post for which minimum qualification is ITI/Course Completed Act Apprenticeship.
c) As per Clause 6.0, the applicants are eligible as they had undergone and obtained their degree from the Board of Apprentices Training (Northern Region, Kanpur), which operates under the Ministry of Human Resource Development, Govt. of India. Apart from the above, it is admitted position that the applicant undergone apprenticeship training under the Apprenticeship Act, 1961 in Railway Establishment.
d) As per the Master Circular No.8/2002, dated 22.07.2002, which was framed under the Apprenticeship Act, 1961 the Page 29 of 58 modus of training/instructions had been given and it has been provided therein 3 categories apprentices which are as under:
(i) Trade apprentices-either fresh candidates or ITI qualified candidates
(ii) Technician apprentices (Diploma Holders); and
(iii) Graduate Engineer apprentices.
e) As per Paragraph-19 of the aforesaid Master Circular provision of absorption of Course Completed Act Apprentices are given. In Paragraph-19.2.1, it has been provided as under:
PUNIT KUMAR MISHRA For recruitment to the posts of:-
Skilled Artisans, Group 'C' posts for which Engineering Degree and Engineering Diploma are the qualification, Diesel Electric Assistants, Group 'D' posts Other things being equal between two candidates the candidate who is course completed Act Apprentice trained in Railway Establishment will be given preference over the candidate who is not such an apprentice.
However, there would be no change in the procedure of the recruitment and the selection for recruitment will be in accordance with merits of the eligible candidates.
f) All of sudden, a corrigendum and amendment was made by the Respondents on 22.04.2022 after 3 years 10 months and they have introduced in Paragraph 12.4 of the advertisement, by which Course Completed Act Apprentices will be given due weightage for the marks obtained in National Council of Vocational Training (NCVT) examination such that one third of the marks in preparation of the final merit list after conduct Page 30 of 58 of CBT shall be based on the marks obtained in National Council of Vocational Training (NCVT) examination.'
g) The intention of the aforesaid amendment was to exclude Diploma Holder and Degree Holders, who are CCAA from the serviced post of 20 % quota has already breached the provisions of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India as it is permissible under the law to create class within class.
h) In view thereof, the applicants herein had also uploaded their PUNIT KUMAR Grade Marks of which specific pleading has been made and MISHRA not denied by the Respondents in their counter affidavit. '
i) During the recruitment process, a letter was written to the Hon'ble Minister on 04.09.2021 in context of the Railway Course Completed Act Apprentices (Diploma and Degree Holders) by Hon'ble Member of Parliament, by which M.P. stated 55 persons have completed their Railway Course Completed Act Apprentice (Diploma & Degree Holders) in 2017, but they have not been engaged in the Railways as peer Railway Circular No.RBE No.171/2010 and 113/2012. In reply, the Hon'ble Railway Minister stated that the matter has been examined, Railway obligation under the Apprentice Act, 1961 is limited to providing training only. However, CCAA can apply for Level-1 category exams where a preference up to 20 % is kept for them. The aforesaid letters have been admitted by the respondents as a matter of records as stated by the respondents in counter affidavit.
j) In view of the aforesaid letter dated 28.04.2022, it is crystal clear that Diploma holders candidates, who are also CCAA Page 31 of 58 can apply for Level-1 category exam under 20 % quota. Therefore, the applicant, who are admittedly, diploma holders and CCAA cannot excluded from the 20 % quota.
k) The applicant, who are diploma holders, who had undergone apprenticeship Training under Railway under Apprenticeship Act, 1961, who acquired the status of CCAA under the Act, 1961 and in terms of Master Circular No.08/2002 are deprived from the quota of 20 %, which has been earmarked for CCAA. However, as per the respondents, the applicants are eligible for appointment on group D post, if they apply PUNIT KUMAR MISHRA other category in which they belong i.e. General, OBC and SC/ST.
l) The respondents failed to produce any Policy Decision, which deprived the Diploma Holder, who undergone Apprenticeship Training in Railway and also known by designation of CCAA.
m) After the corrigendum, the applicants of of O.A. Nos.102 of 2023, O.A. No.167 of 2023, O.A. No.205 of 2023, O.A. No.223 of 2023 and O.A. No. 324 of 2023 have been finally selected only on the basis of their marks obtained in CBT without consideration of their Grade Marks although the weightage of 1/3 marks of Trade Apprentices/NCVT candidates were included in the merit list and as such, they were called for document verifications and medical examinations. However, the applicants of O.A. No.94/2023 were disqualified as their grade marks were not calculated along with the marks of CBT Test.
n) The applicants have taken specific plea in O.A.s that as per UG programmes, the grade of the applicants could be Page 32 of 58 translated/converted into numerical numbers, but no rebuttal has come from the respondents.
o) The applicants have also taken a specific plea that the marks obtained by the Trade Apprentices in CBT test are O to 1, have been selected on the basis of their NCVT Marks, but no specific reply has been given by the respondents, meaning thereby, most ineligible candidates of the Trade Apprentices having NCVT certificates had been selected, which is disregard of the object of the selection process. PUNIT KUMAR
p) In 2018, many persons, having Diploma and had undergone MISHRA training in Railway Establishment and falls within the category of CCAA like the applicants, whose names have been mentioned in the Original Applications, have been appointed by the Railway Recruitment Board, Gorakhpur from the direct recruitment and as such, the respondents cannot adopt the pick and choose method and it is clear cut case of discrimination.
q) The advertisement of 2018 and Advertisement of 2019 same and similar and not a single word has been changed by the respondents, but in 2018, the respondents have appointed the candidates, having diploma holders with CCAA, but in the present case, denied the appointment of the applicants and also marks/weightage of 1/3 marks against the Grade of Trade Apprentice were not calculated along with the marks of CBT Test and as such, the applicants of O.A. No.94/2023 could not qualify and if the said marks/grades were included, they are also in the selected list.
Page 33 of 58
r) In the present selection process i.e. RRC 01/2019, few candidates, having diploma holders have been appointed in South Eastern Railway.
s) Once the selection process has been started, the criteria of the same could not be changed.
t) Selection process can be challenged in case of illegality is committed and rules are breached. The applicants herein, save and except the O.A. No.94/2023 had not failed in the selection process. However, the applicants of O.A. PUNIT KUMAR No.94/2023 have been deliberately disqualified as their Grade MISHRA Marks were not calculated as per the amendment dated 22.04.2022.
u) The stands of the respondents for excluding the Diploma Holders from the category of CCAA cannot be justified in any manner and the respondents had failed to submit any rationale or any reason for same. However, the respondents had admitted before this Court that the candidates, who are diploma holders and CCAA can be engaged on the post of Group 'D' as 'substitute' under the power of General as per the Circular dated 02.12.2010, but for the recruitment from open market they have barred as per the Circular dated 21.06.2016 and as such, the aforesaid stand cannot be rationalized or justified by any stretch of imagination.
v) The Circular dated 21.06.2016 does not supersede the Master Circular No.08/2002 dated 22.07.2002, letter dated 02.12.2010 and letter dated 28.04.2022 written by Hon'ble Railway Minister had completely removed the doubt and categorically states that the Diploma Holders can apply for Page 34 of 58 Level-1 category under the quota of CCAA for which 20 % posts are reserved for them.
w) The respondents cannot by-pass the Apprenticeship Act, 1961 and the Rules made thereunder on the principle that there is no estopple against the law.
x) The controversy in the context of Diploma Holders had been settled by the High Court of Lucknow Bench in case of Jaideep Shukla's case (supra) in which the policy decision of the Railway Board against engagement of Diploma Holders PUNIT KUMAR on Group 'D' Post had been set aside. The said judgment has MISHRA attained the finality.
y) The aforesaid judgment had been followed by this Tribunal in O.A No.87/2013 in which the Tribunal had categorically recorded finding about the flip flop approach of the respondents in context of Degree/Diploma Holders Apprentices and their failure to maintain a consistent lawful stance.
z) The applicants are also trained by the Railway Administration as they have completed training in Railway Administration. 10.1 Learned counsel for the applicants placed heavy reliance on the following judgments ;-
(i) Anil Kishore Pandit Vs. State of Bihar & Ors., decided on 02.02.2024 passed in Civil Appeal No.1566/2024
(ii) Ramesh Kumar Vs. High Court of Delhi & Anr., 2010 AIR, SCW 946 (Krishna Rai (dead) through legal representatives and ors. Vs. Baranas Hindu University) Page 35 of 58
(iii) Naresh Chandar & Ors. Vs. Hindustan Insectisides Ltd., 1985 (51) FLR 93
(iv) Jaideep Kumar Shukla Vs. Union of India, in Writ Petition No.626/2009 vide order dated 14.05.2010 by High Court of Allahabad Lucknow Bench.
(v) P.C. Joshi Vs. Union of India in O.A .No.87/2013 vide order dated 13.03.2024 by this Tribunal.
(vi) Jaideep Kumar Shukla & Ors. Vs Union of India in Writ A No.14538/2016 vide order dated 19.09.2024 passed by High PUNIT KUMAR MISHRA Court of Allahabad, Lucknow Bench.
(vii) State of West Bengal Vs. Anwar Ali Sarkar & Ors., AIR (39) 1952 SC 75
(viii) Tata Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Custom, (2015) 11 SCC 628 Arguments of the learned counsels for the respondents in all the cases:-
11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the contention of the learned counsel for the applicants in all the cases and submitted as under:-
i. As per the terms and conditions of the advertisement, the candidates have minimum qualification for appointment was 10th pass or ITI from institutions recognized by NCVT/SCVT or equivalent (or) National Apprenticeship Certificate (NAC) granted by NCVT.
ii. In Advertisement itself, mentioned that Diploma or Degree in Engineering shall not be accepted in lieu of CCAA or ITI.Page 36 of 58
Also Grade Act Apprentice will not be accepted in lieu of CCAA.
iii. Clause 12 of Advertisement clearly stipulates that the vacancies to be filled from among the CCAAs trained in Railway Establishments and possessing NAC granted by NCVT is separately indicated in the vacancy table. The applicants, who have not possessed a valid Apprentice certificate issued by NAC /NCVT.
iv. In view of Clause 12 of the Advertisement, it is crystal clear that a distinct category of horizontal reservation for those, PUNIT KUMAR MISHRA who have undergone and completed CCAA within Railway Establishments and who posses a valid NAC granted by the NCVT.
v. During the document verification, all the applicants, save and except the applicants of O.A. No.94/2023 failed to Apprenticeship Training Certificate issued by NCVT and as such, they were ineligible for the CCAA reservation.
vi. Admittedly, the applicants, being diploma holders, have completed apprenticeship in Railway establishment, and have been awarded Certificates of Proficiency by BOAT (Northern Region) under the Ministry of Education and not by the NCVT, are ineligible for the post advertised under CCAA quota, but they have filled up the application online and as such, appeared in the recruitment process provisionally.
vii. The Certificates of Proficiency by BOAT (Northern Region) under the Ministry of Education award grades, whereas the certificate issued by the NCVT contains numerical marks, and as such, no weightage under merit calculation has been given to all the applicants.Page 37 of 58
viii. The certificate of Proficiency issued by BOAT does not confer eligibility for appearing in the All India Trade Test (AITT).
ix. A clarification has also been sought from RDSDE Kanpur, via its communication dated 02/03.06.2025, by which it is informed to the Department that Certificate of Proficiency (Apprenticeship certificate ) of the applicants are not equivalent to NAC. NAC is issued only for designated trades under the Apprentices Act by NCVT/DGT. The Diploma/Degree holders are not eligible to appear in the PUNIT KUMAR MISHRA NCVT's AITT exam.
x. The Mechanical Workshop, NER, Gorakhpur, via letter dated 05.06.2025, also reiterated that the certificate in question issued to diploma holders is not a NAC and only ITI-trained Act Apprentices, who qualify the AITT exam are awarded NAC.
xi. Railway Board Circular dated 21.06.2016 mandates that 20% of vacancies in Level-1 posts are to be filled by CCAAs holding NAC issued by NCVT, which is not under challenge and the Applicants herein do not possess NAC, hence are rightly excluded from selection under the CCAA quota. xii. The applicants of O.A. No.94/2023 have less marks in the merit list and as such, they were rightly not called for document verification and medical test.
xiii. The applicants appear in the recruitment process provisionally on the information given by themselves in the Online Application Form as they have categorically stated in the application form that they have completed CCAA as per Apprenticeship, 1961.
Page 38 of 58 xiv. As per the Rule/Advertisement, one-third weightage is accorded based on NCVT marks and since the applicants have no apprenticeship Certificate issued by NCVT, they have not been given the said benefit of one-third weightage as Diploma Holders awarded grades for apprenticeship training.
xv. To facilitate the candidates, who appeared in document verification, were also examined medically on the same /next day.
xvi. As per the Advertisement, the respondents reserve the right PUNIT KUMAR MISHRA to amend any clause of the advertisement at any time, which is binding upon the candidates as well as the Department. xvii. The applicants have not challenged the advertisement at the initial stage and after declaring failed, they have challenged the some clause of the Advertisement, which is not permissible in the eyes of law.
xviii. The amendment/Corrigendum did not affect the applicants as they do not have apprenticeship certificate issued by NCVT.
xix. Since there is an advertisement and as such, terms and conditions of the advertisement is binding upon the Recruiting Authority and not the letter of Hon'ble Railway Minister.
12. We have considered the submissions so raised by the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the records.
13. It reflects from the records that the respondents issued an advertisement bearing No. RRC 01/2019 dated 23.02.2019 for recruitment to various posts in Level-1 of the VII Pay Matrix (Group-D Page 39 of 58 posts), to be conducted across India by various Railway Boards/Zones. As per the said advertisement, a total of 20,734 vacancies were earmarked for Course Completed Act Apprentices (CCAAs), who had undergone training in Railway Establishments. Pursuant to the same, the applicants, who are diploma Holders and having completed their apprentice training in Railway Administration, applied for the said post under the vacancy earmarked for CCAA quota. The applicants submitted their online applications and were issued call letters to participate in the recruitment process and all the applicants appeared in the Computer Based Test (hereinafter referred as 'CBT'). Thereafter, PUNIT KUMAR MISHRA the applicants of O.A. Nos. 102/2023, 167/2023, 205/2023, 223/2023, and 324/2023 were declared successful on the basis of their performance in the CBT test without adding the marks/Grade obtained in their respective Apprenticeship courses, as they were Diploma Holders. In contrast, candidates holding NCVT Trade Apprenticeship certificates were granted the benefit of additional marks in accordance with the corrigendum dated 22.04.2022. However, the applicant in O.A. No. 94/2023 was not declared successful, as the weightage of marks obtained in the Apprenticeship course were not taken into account along with the CBT marks, due to the amended provisions which restrict such weightage to NCVT-certified candidates only. Consequently, O.A. No. 94/2023 came to be filed. However, the applicants of O.A. Nos. 102/2023, 167/2023, 205/2023, 223/2023, and 324/2023 were called for Document Verification and Medical Examination as they were qualified in CBT though without giving weightage of marks of Apprenticeship Course as per Corrigendum dated 22.04.2022 and the said applicants were declared qualified in medical examination and document verification. However, despite having successfully completed all stages of the recruitment process, no Page 40 of 58 appointment letters were issued to them and the aforesaid applicants were orally informed that they were not eligible for appointment, without any written communication or reasoned order. Aggrieved by exclusion, the applicants were constrained to file O.A. Nos. 102/2023, 167/2023, 205/2023, 223/2023 and 324/2023.
14. Before going into the merits of the case, it would be appropriate to go through the Advertisement No.01/2019 issued by the respondents and relevant clauses of the said Advertisement is quoted as under:-
PUNIT KUMAR MISHRA 6.0 Educational Qualifications:
Candidates should have requisite minimum educational qualification indicated for posts in Annexure-A of this CEN from recognized Board/NCVT/SCVT as on the closing date for online registration. Those awaiting results of the final examination of the prescribed minimum educational qualification should not apply.
Note: Diploma/Degree in Engineering will not be accepted in lieu of Course Completed Act Apprenticeship/ITI. Also, Graduate Act Apprentice will not be accepted in lieu of Course Completed Act Apprenticeship.
12.0 Railway Act Apprentices 12.1 The vacancies to be filled from among the Course Completed Act Apprentices (CCAAs) trained in Railway Establishments and possessing National Apprenticeship Certificate (NAC) granted by National Council of Vocational Training (NCVT) is separately indicated in the vacancy table. This will be in the nature of horizontal reservation as in the case of persons with benchmark disabilities (PwBDs) and Ex-servciemen. However, unlike in the case of PsBDs, there will be no carry forward of the unfilled vacancies to be filled by this mechanism. In case of shortfall, the vacant slots shall be filled from others in the combined merit list. 12.2 The last date for registration of online application i.e. on or before 12.04.2019 of this CEN shall be the cutoff date for completion of Apprenticeship. A candidate shall be considered to have completed date for registration of online application i.e. on or before 12.04.2019 of this CEN and result for which might not have been declared. However, the candidate should submit the NAC certificate issued by NCVT during document verification failing which he/she shall not be eligible for reservation as CCAA (trained in Railway Establishment) under this provision.Page 41 of 58
12.3 The Course completed Act Apprentice will be eligible to apply for any RRB/RRC irrespective of the Railway Establishment in which they have been trained subject to fulfilling other eligibility conditions.
Annexure-A of the Advertisement:-
Minimum Educational Qualification is 10th Pass (OR) ITI from institutions recognized by NCVT/SCVT (or) Equivalent (or) National Apprenticeship Certificate (NAC) granted by NCVT.
15. In view of the above, it is crystal clear that Diploma/Degree in Engineering will not be accepted in lieu of Course Completed Act Apprenticeship/ITI also, Graduate Act Apprentice will not be accepted in lieu of Course Completed Act Apprenticeship. Further, the vacancies PUNIT KUMAR MISHRA earmarked under CCAA should be filled from among the Course Completed Act Apprentices (CCAAs) trained in Railway Establishments and possessing National Apprenticeship Certificate (NAC) granted by National Council of Vocational Training (NCVT).
16. Undisputedly, the applicants are diploma Holders and after accepting the terms and conditions of the Advertisement with their open eyes and being fully aware that they are Diploma Holders without possessing the apprenticeship certificate issued by NCVT, submitted their application form for the vacancies earmarked for CCAA and participated in the selection process against the vacancies earmarked for CCAA category.
17. It is settled principles of law that once the candidate participated in the recruitment process by accepting the terms and conditions stipulated in the Advertisement, it is not open for the candidate to turn around and challenge the legality or validity of the terms and conditions of the Advertisement.
18. In the present case also, all the applicants after participating in the selection process, challenged the Clause 6 and Page 42 of 58 Clause 12.1 of the Advertisement, which is not permissible in the eyes of law. At this stage, it is appropriate to refer to the law laid down by the Apex Court in case of Union of India Vs. N. Murugesan, reported in (2020) 2 SCC 25, wherein it has been held as under:-
"Party cannot be allowed to approbate or reprobate. The unselected candidates cannot press into service a part of the 1978 Rules, while accepting the 2015 Rules by taking part in the selection process, thus one cannot blow hot and cold. Such a selective adoption is not permissible under the law."
19. In case of Ramesh Chandra Shah v. Anil Joshi , (2013) PUNIT KUMAR MISHRA 11 SCC 309, after referring to a catena of judgments on the principle of waiver and estoppel, the Supreme Court did not entertain the challenge to the authenticity of advertisement for the reason that the same would not be maintainable after participating in the selection process. The relevant extracts of the judgment read as:
"24. In view of the propositions laid down in the above noted judgments, it must be held that by having taken part in the process of selection with full knowledge that the recruitment was being made under the General Rules, the respondents had waived their right to question the advertisement or the methodology adopted by the Board for making selection and the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court committed grave error by entertaining the grievance made by the respondents."
20. In case of Ashok Kumar v. State of Bihar , (2017) 4 SCC 357, the Apex Court after referring to catena of judgments made an observation that having participated in the selection process without objection, precludes the candidate to challenge the process at a later stage.
21. In case of Union of India v. S. Vinodh Kumar, (2007) 8 SCC 100, the Apex Court held that it is well settled principle that those candidates, who had taken part in the selection process knowing fully Page 43 of 58 well the procedure laid down therein were not entitled to question the same.
22. The Apex Court in case of Sadananda Halo v. Momtaz Ali Sheikh, (2008) 4 SCC 619 has noted that the only exception to the rule of waiver is the existence of mala fide on the part of the Selection Board.
23. The Apex Court in case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Karunesh Kumar and Others 2022 SCC Online SC 1706 has clearly held that a candidate who has participated in the selection process is PUNIT KUMAR MISHRA estopped and cannot challenge the selection process.
24. In the present case, it is also not in dispute that the applicants possessed educational qualification of having passed Diploma Courses and have undergone practical training in the Railways establishment and certificate of proficiency in this regard has also been issued by Board of Apprenticeship Training (Northern Region), Kanpur, which is under the Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India. This is not a National Apprenticeship Certificate issued by the NCVT, which was essential qualification for the CCAA vacancies as per the Advertisement. It is crystal clear from the Advertisement that the CCAA vacancies are to be filled by the candidates, who have undergone training in Railway Establishments and who possess National Apprenticeship Certificate (NAC) granted by National Council of Vocational Training (NCVT).
25. Further, The Ministry of Railway vide RBE No.71/2016 dated 21.06.2016 made a Policy that 20 % of the vacancies in case of direct recruitment to posts/categories in Pay Band-1 of Rs.5200-20,200 Page 44 of 58 having Grade Pay of Rs.1800/- shall be filled giving preference to CCAA trained in Railway Establishments and possessing National Apprenticeship Certificate (NAC) granted by National Council of Vocational Training (NCVT), which is still in existence and pursuant to the same, the respondents have issued Advertisement No.01/2019. The applicants on one hand, wanted appointment under said category of CCAA and on the other hand, they challenged Clauses 6.0 and 12.1 of the Advertisement, which is not permissible in the eyes of law after participating the selection, which debars the Diploma Holders from selection.
PUNIT KUMAR MISHRA
26. It is not open for this Tribunal to enter into an area to decide the issue of educational qualifications possessed by the applicants. The respondents themselves have laid down through their policy decision, the eligibility qualifications for the post in question. When the required qualifications have been notified through a public notice, the candidature of a candidate, who possessed such qualifications, cannot be taken away from the consideration of selection. When educational qualification is specifically laid down, a candidate is required to possess the requisite qualifications as mentioned in the Advertisement, if he is applying. If at all, the applicants are aggrieved with certain clauses of Advertisement, they could have approached earlier this Tribunal at the initial stage of recruitment process.
27. So far as the contention of the learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants have undergone training in Railway Establishments and their certificates are equivalent to certificate issued by the NCVT and the applicants are more qualified is concerned, the same is not acceptable to this Tribunal as the apprenticeship Page 45 of 58 certificate, of the applicants were issued by Board of Apprenticeship Training, (Northern Region) Kanpur in form of Certificate of Proficiency, whereas NAC is issued by Directorate General of Training (DGT), New Delhi after qualifying the All India Trade Test (AITT) and the applicants have never qualified the All India Trade Test for issuance of their Act Apprenticeship Training Certificate. Further, in clause 12.2 of the Advertisement, it has been categorically stated that the candidate should submit the NAC certificate issued by NCVT during document verification failing which he/she shall not be eligible for reservation as CCAA (trained in Railway Establishment), meaning PUNIT KUMAR MISHRA thereby that the selection under the category of CCAA was restricted to candidates, who have the Act Apprenticeship Training Certificate issued by the NCVT. The Prescription of qualifications and other conditions of recruitment process is a Policy matter and is within the exclusive discretion and domain of the State/Employer.
28. It is not open to the Courts/Tribunals to direct the Government to have a particular method of recruitment or eligibility criteria. The observation of the Supreme Court in case of P.U. Joshi and Others vs. Accountant General, Ahmedabad and others, reported in 2003 (2) SCC 632, read thus:-
"10. ... Questions relating to the constitution, pattern, nomenclature of posts, cadres, categories, their creation/abolition, prescription of qualifications and other conditions of service including avenues of promotions and criteria to be fulfilled for such promotions pertain to the field of Policy is within the exclusive discretion and jurisdiction of the State, subject, of course, to the limitations or restrictions envisaged in the Constitution of India and it is not for the statutory tribunals, at any rate, to direct the Government to have a particular method of recruitment or eligibility criteria or avenues of promotion or impose itself by substituting its views for that of the State. Similarly, it is well open and within the competency of the State to Page 46 of 58 change the rules relating to a service and alter or amend and vary by addition/substraction the qualifications, eligibility criteria and other conditions of service including avenues of promotion, from time to time, as the administrative exigencies may need or necessitate."
29. Further, in case of Chandigarh Administration vs. Usha Kheterpal Waie and others4, Supreme Court, in paragraph 22, observed thus:
"22. It is now well settled that it is for the rule-making authority or the appointing authority to prescribe the mode of selection and minimum qualification for any recruitment. The courts and tribunals can neither prescribe the qualifications nor entrench upon the power of the authority PUNIT KUMAR concerned so long as the qualifications prescribed by the MISHRA employer is reasonably relevant and has a rational nexus with the functions and duties attached to the post and are not violative of any provision of the Constitution, statute and rules. [See J. Rangaswamy vs. Govt. of A.P. (1990) 1 SCC 288 and P.U. Joshi vs. Accountant General (2003) 2 SCC 632]. In the absence of any rules, under Article 309 or statute, the appellant had the power to appoint under its general power of administration and prescribe such eligibility criteria as it is considered to be necessary and reasonable. Therefore, it cannot be said that the prescription of Ph.D. is unreasonable."
30. The Allahabad High Court in case of Prashant Kumar Jaiswal and others vs. State of U.P. and others, reported in 2018(2) ADJ 633 in a similar challenge to treat computer eligibility certificate obtained from unrecognized institutions held as under:-
"This Court is of the considered view that a recognized qualification must be recognized to be an integral facet of Article 16 and consequently of the right of "equal opportunity". It is accordingly declared as such. Acceptance of certificates of doubtful validity or dubious credibility would be clearly violative of Article 16. The submission therefore that any certificate granted by any organization irrespective of whether it is recognized as per established norms should be accepted is untenable and liable to be rejected outright. The acceptance of this proposition would have deleterious consequences and unleash pernicious possibilities.Page 47 of 58
31. In appointment to public service, the object of process of selection is to secure the best and the most suitable person to be tested impartially and objectively. The Court has no role in determining the methodology of recruitment or laying down the criteria/qualification of selection. The power of judicial review can be exercised in such matters only if it is shown that the action of the employer in public service is contrary to any constitutional or statutory provision or is patently arbitrary. The Constitution does not permit the Court to direct or advise executive in matters of policy.
PUNIT KUMAR
32. The Apex Court in Union of India vs. Pushpa Rani and MISHRA others reported in (2008) 9 SCC 242, observed as follows:
"37. Before parting with this aspect of the case, we consider it necessary to reiterate the settled legal position that matters relating to creation and abolition of posts, formation and structuring/restructuring of cadres, prescribing the source/mode of recruitment and qualifications, criteria of selection, evaluation of service records of the employees fall within the exclusive domain of the employer. What steps should be taken for improving efficiency of the administration is also the preserve of the employer. The power of judicial review can be exercised in such matters only if it is shown that the action of the employer is contrary to any constitutional or statutory provision or is patently arbitrary or is vitiated due to mala fides. The Court has no role in determining the methodology of recruitment or laying down the criteria of selection. It is also not open to the Court to make comparative evaluation of the merit of the candidates. The Court cannot suggest the manner in which the employer should structure or restructure the cadres for the purpose of improving efficiency of administration."
33. We need not note various decisions on the points where the Courts have held that the matter pertaining to the equivalence being an area of expert opinion should be left to the experts and Courts should not indulge in voyagerism. Mere equivalence is not enough, it must be recognized as such. No such expert opinion or decision has Page 48 of 58 been placed before us to support the contention of the applicants that the Act Apprenticeship Certificate, issued by Board of Apprentice Training, Kanpur is duly recognized by NCVT and equivalent to Act Apprenticeship Certificate given by the NCVT.
34. Further, though the applicants have challenged the Clause 6.0 and 12.1 of the Advertisement after participating in the selection process, but they have not challenged the Clause 12.2 of the Advertisement, which clarifies that a candidate will be treated as having completed Act Apprenticeship only if he has appeared in PUNIT KUMAR the NCVT examination on or before the last date of online MISHRA registration (12.04.2019). Even if the result was pending at the time of application, the candidate would still be considered, provided they produce the NAC certificate issued by the NCVT during the document verification stage, failing which, he /she shall not be eligible for reservation as CCAA and as such, since the applicants do not have Act Apprenticeship Certificate issued by NCVT, they are ineligible for the vacancy earmarked under CCAA.
35. Further, during the pendency of the Original Application, the respondent- the Railway Recruitment Cell (RRC), North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur sought clarification from the Regional Directorate of Skill Development & Entrepreneurship (RDSDE), Kanpur whether the Certificate of Proficiency issued to diploma holder apprentices by the Board of Apprenticeship Training (BOAT), Northern Region, Kanpur, is equivalent to the National Apprenticeship Certificate (NAC) issued by the National Council for Vocational Training (NCVT). This equivalence was in question for eligibility under the Course Completed Act Apprentices (CCAA) category. In reply, RDSDE Kanpur responded Page 49 of 58 by clarifying that the Certificate of Proficiency is issued by BOAT under the Ministry of Education, whereas the NAC is issued exclusively by NCVET/DGT under the Ministry of Skill Development & Entrepreneurship. NAC is granted only after passing the All India Trade Test (AITT) for designated trades as per the Apprenticeship Act, 1961. Diploma or degree holders receiving a Certificate of Proficiency are not eligible for AITT and therefore do not qualify for the NAC. These two certificates differ in legal status, issuing authority, and the categories of apprentices they cover. For better appreciation of the matter, reply dated 02/03.06.2025 is quoted as under:-
PUNIT KUMAR MISHRA Sir, With reference to your Letter No.:
Ka/NER/RRC/Court case dated 28.05.2025, the following clarification as under-
1. It is to inform that the attached Certificate of proficiency (Reg. No. BR0123T60012013) was issued by Board of Apprenticeship Training (Northern Region), Kanpur under the Ministry of Education, Govt. of India.
The NAC Certificates are issued in 261 designated trades by NCVET. The attached Certificate of Proficiency (Reg. No. BR0123T60012013) is issued by MHRD.
2. Those candidates having Degree/Diploma Certificate and engaged as an apprentice in any Railway establishment are not issued NAC Certificate as the trades do not fall under the ambit of "Designated trades"
defined by NCVET.
3. The Degree/Diploma apprentices are not eligible for All India Trade Test (AITT) conducted by NCVET/DGT, as per the Apprenticeship Act, 1961.
4. Certificate of Proficiency is issued by BOAT and falls under the ambit of the Ministry of Education.
36. Additionally, the respondents sought confirmation from the Mechanical Workshop Training Centre, Gorakhpur, regarding the issuance of NAC for certain applicants. The Centre clarified as under:-
विषम् सॊदबभ् OA.No. 167/2023 हहभ ॊशु कुभ य ि अन्म फन भ ब यत सॊघ ि अन्म। आऩक सभ सॊख्मक ऩत्र सॊ०- क /एनईआय/आयआयसी/कोर्भ केस हद०- 26.05.25.Page 50 of 58
सन्दर्बभत ऩत्र द्ि य मह अिगत कय म गम है कक अभ्मथी सोनू चौधयी के ऩऺ भें NAC प्रभ ण ऩत्र (Reg. no. AZ/0317/T/5503/2017) ज यी ककम गम है । इसभें स्ऩष्र् मह कयन है कक मह एक ट्रे ननॊग सहर्भ कपकेर् है जजसभें मह दश भम गम है कक प्रर्शऺु ने 21.02.2017 से 20.02.2018 तक ट्रे ननॊग ककम है । मह प्रभ णणत NAC सहर्भ कपकेर् नहीॊ हैं औय इसभें जो Reg. no. AZ/0317/T/5503/2017 दजभ है िह बी केन्र द्ि य ननगभत नहीॊ है । प्रभ णणत सहर्भ कपकेर् र्सपभ र्शऺुत प्रर्शऺण फोर्भ (उत्तयी ऺेत्र) क नऩुय द्ि य ही ज यी ककम ज त है ।
अत् इस केन्र द्ि य ज यी सहर्भ कपकेर् र्सपभ प्रर्शऺण अिधध दश भत है कक इन्होने मह ॉ से सम्फजन्धत ट्रे र् भें प्रर्शऺण ककम है । ननमुजतत के सभम अभ्मथी से एक नोर्यी बी र्रम ज त है जजसभें मह बफन्दु यहत है कक अभ्मथी ककसी बी ये र कभभच यी होने क द ि नहीॊ कये ग ।
मह बी स्ऩष्र् है कक डर्ग्री / डर्प्रोभ ध यकों क अप्रेहर्ॊसर्शऩ सहर्भ कपकेर् र्शऺुत प्रर्शऺण फोर्भ क नऩुय द्ि य मोग्मत प्रभ ण ऩत्र के रुऩ भें ज यी होत है । जफकक एतर् अप्रे० आई०र्ी०आई० हे तु NAC सहर्भ कपकेर् प्रर्शऺु द्ि य All India Trade PUNIT KUMAR MISHRA Test (AITT) ऩ स कयने के उऩय न्त तत्सभम RDSDE क नऩुय द्ि य ज यी ककम ज त थ जो ितभभ न भें Directorate General of Training (DGT) नमी हदल्री द्ि य ज यी ककम ज त है ।
37. In view of the above reply and clarification, the Certificate of Proficiency cannot be considered equivalent to the NAC/NCVT for recruitment under the CCAA category.
38. Further, the applicants have not challenged the corrigendum dated 22.04.2022, by which certain clauses have been included in the Advertisement in question and only pleadings have been made in the Original Applications. However, the respondents have clearly stipulated in Clause 1.17 of the Advertisement that they reserved the right to incorporate any subsequent changes /modifications /additions in the terms and conditions of the recruitment under this CEN. This Court also failed to understand that how the said corrigendum has affected the applicants. Further, after issuance of corrigendum, a link was opened and applicants have made their entries/filled the details and thereafter, the written test was held and at that point of time, the applicants had no objection for issuance of corrigendum.
Page 51 of 58
39. So far as the contention of the learned counsel for the applicants that the cases of the applicants are squarely covered by the order of the High Court of Lucknow passed in Writ Petition No.626/2009 (S/b) by which, it has been held that the Diploma Holders are also eligible for Group D post is concerned, the said contention of the learned counsel for the applicants is not acceptable to this Court on the ground that at that time, there was no advertisement and General Managers of the Zone had powers to appoint the Trade Apprentices, who had undergone the Apprentice Training as per the Apprentice Act at Loco Workshop of Railway, whereas in the present case, there is an PUNIT KUMAR MISHRA advertisement, which is binding upon the applicants as well as respondents and wherein, it has been clearly stipulated that Diploma or Degree in Engineering shall not be considered a substitute for the Course Completed Act Apprenticeship or ITI, which are the prescribed qualifications under Annexure-A of the Advertisement. In this regard, Railway Board's Letter No.RBE No.71/2016 dated 21.06.2016, which reads as under:-
Sub: Recruitment of staff from open market In Pay Band-1 of 5,200-20,200 having Grade Pay of 1800/-.
Pursuant to amendment to Section 22 Sub-section (1) of the Apprentices Act, 1961, Board had constituted a Committee to formulate the policy for according preference to Course Completed Act Apprentices (CCAAs) in recruitment. The Committee has given its recommendation and accordingly, it has been decided by the Board that 20% of the vacancies in case of direct recruitment to posts/categories in Pay Band-1 of 5,200-20,200 having Grade Pay of 1800/- shall be filled giving preference to Course Completed Act Apprentices (CCAAS) trained in Railway establishments and possessing National Apprenticeship Certificate (NAC) granted by National Council of Vocational Training (NCVT). This will be in the nature of horizontal reservation as in the case of Persons with Disabilities (PWDs) and Ex-Servicemen. However, unlike in the case of PWDs, there will be no 'carry forward of the unfilled vacancies, to be filled by this mechanism. In case of shortfall, the vacant slots shall be filled from others Page 52 of 58 in the combined merit list. Guidelines are enclosed as Annexure.
40. In view of above RBE, it is crystal clear that 20 % of the vacancies in case of direct recruitment to posts/categories in Pay Band-1 of Rs.5200-20,200 having Grade Pay of Rs.1800/- shall be filled giving preference to CCAA trained in Railway Establishments and possessing National Apprenticeship Certificate (NAC) granted by National Council of Vocational Training (NCVT). The advertisement was as per the said Policy.
41. So far as the argument of the learned counsel for the PUNIT KUMAR MISHRA applicants that some persons/diploma holders have been appointed in pursuance of Advertisement No.01/2018, wherein the terms and conditions of Advertisement No.01/2019 are same and similar and the applicants have been discriminated and same is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution is concerned, the same is also not acceptable to this Court as a wrong order/decision in favour of any particular party does not entitle any other party to claim benefits on the basis of the wrong decision. Even otherwise, Article 14 cannot be stretched too far for otherwise it would make the functioning of administration impossible.
42. Further, Article 14 is not meant to perpetuate illegality or fraud. Article 14 of the Constitution has a positive concept. Equality is a trite, which cannot be claimed in illegality and therefore, cannot be enforced by a citizen or court in a negative manner. If an illegality and irregularity has been committed in favour of an individual or a group of individuals, others cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the court for repeating or multiplying the same irregularity or illegality. Similar issue fell for consideration before the Apex Court in case of State of Odisha Page 53 of 58 v. Anup Kumar Senapati, (2019) 19 SCC 626 : 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1207 at page 656, it has been held as under :-
40. In Basawaraj v. LAO [Basawaraj v. LAO, (2013) 14 SCC 81] , it was held thus : (SCC p. 85, para 8) "8. It is a settled legal proposition that Article 14 of the Constitution is not meant to perpetuate illegality or fraud, even by extending the wrong decisions made in other cases. The said provision does not envisage negative equality but has only a positive aspect. Thus, if some other similarly situated persons have been granted some relief/benefit inadvertently or by mistake, such an order does not confer any legal right on others to get the same relief as well. If a wrong is committed in an earlier case, it cannot be perpetuated. Equality is a trite, which cannot be claimed in illegality and therefore, cannot PUNIT KUMAR be enforced by a citizen or court in a negative MISHRA manner. If an illegality and irregularity has been committed in favour of an individual or a group of individuals or a wrong order has been passed by a judicial forum, others cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the higher or superior court for repeating or multiplying the same irregularity or illegality or for passing a similarly wrong order. A wrong order/decision in favour of any particular party does not entitle any other party to claim benefits on the basis of the wrong decision. Even otherwise, Article 14 cannot be stretched too far for otherwise it would make functioning of administration impossible.
(Vide Chandigarh Admn. v. Jagjit Singh [Chandigarh Admn. v. Jagjit Singh, (1995) 1 SCC 745] , Anand Buttons Ltd. v. State of Haryana [Anand Buttons Ltd. v. State of Haryana, (2005) 9 SCC 164] , K.K. Bhalla v. State of M.P. [K.K. Bhalla v. State of M.P., (2006) 3 SCC 581] and Fuljit Kaur v. State of Punjab [Fuljit Kaur v. State of Punjab, (2010) 11 SCC 455] .)"
41. In Chaman Lal v. State of Punjab [Chaman Lal v. State of Punjab, (2014) 15 SCC 715 : (2015) 3 SCC (L&S) 678] , it was observed as under : (SCC pp. 720- 21, para 16) "16. More so, it is also settled legal proposition that Article 14 does not envisage for negative equality. In case a wrong benefit has been conferred upon someone inadvertently or otherwise, it may not be a ground to grant similar relief to others. This Court in Basawaraj v. LAO [Basawaraj v. LAO, (2013) 14 SCC 81] considered this issue and held as under :
(SCC p. 85, para 8) „8. It is a settled legal proposition that Article 14 of the Constitution is not meant to perpetuate illegality or fraud, even by extending the wrong decisions made in other cases. The said provision does not Page 54 of 58 envisage negative equality but has only a positive aspect. Thus, if some other similarly situated persons have been granted some relief/benefit inadvertently or by mistake, such an order does not confer any legal right on others to get the same relief as well. If a wrong is committed in an earlier case, it cannot be perpetuated. Equality is a trite, which cannot be claimed in illegality and therefore, cannot be enforced by a citizen or court in a negative manner. If an illegality and irregularity has been committed in favour of an individual or a group of individuals or a wrong order has been passed by a judicial forum, others cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the higher or superior court for repeating or multiplying the same irregularity or illegality or for passing a similarly wrong order. A wrong order/decision in favour of any particular party does not entitle any other party to claim benefits on the basis of the wrong decision. Even otherwise, Article PUNIT KUMAR 14 cannot be stretched too far for otherwise it would MISHRA make functioning of administration impossible.
(Vide Chandigarh Admn. v. Jagjit Singh [Chandigarh Admn. v. Jagjit Singh, (1995) 1 SCC 745] , Anand Buttons Ltd. v. State of Haryana [Anand Buttons Ltd. v. State of Haryana, (2005) 9 SCC 164] , K.K. Bhalla v. State of M.P. [K.K. Bhalla v. State of M.P., (2006) 3 SCC 581] and Fuljit Kaur v. State of Punjab [Fuljit Kaur v. State of Punjab, (2010) 11 SCC 455] .)‟ "
42. In Fuljit Kaur v. State of Punjab [Fuljit Kaur v. State of Punjab, (2010) 11 SCC 455] , it was observed thus :
(SCC p. 462, para 11) "11. The respondent cannot claim parity with D.S. Longia v. State of Punjab [D.S. Longia v. State of Punjab, 1992 SCC OnLine P&H 1027 : AIR 1993 P&H 54] , in view of the settled legal proposition that Article 14 of the Constitution of India does not envisage negative equality. Article 14 is not meant to perpetuate illegality or fraud. Article 14 of the Constitution has a positive concept. Equality is a trite, which cannot be claimed in illegality and therefore, cannot be enforced by a citizen or court in a negative manner. If an illegality and irregularity has been committed in favour of an individual or a group of individuals or a wrong order has been passed by a judicial forum, others cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the higher or superior court for repeating or multiplying the same irregularity or illegality or for passing a wrong order. A wrong order/decision in favour of any particular party does not entitle any other party to claim the benefits on the basis of the wrong decision. Even otherwise Article 14 cannot be stretched too far otherwise it would make function of the administration impossible. (Vide Coromandel Fertilizers Ltd. v. Union of India [Coromandel Fertilizers Ltd. v. Union of India, 1984 Supp SCC 457 : 1984 SCC (Tax) 225] , Panchi Devi v. State of Page 55 of 58 Rajasthan [Panchi Devi v. State of Rajasthan, (2009) 2 SCC 589 : (2009) 1 SCC (L&S) 408] and Shanti Sports Club v. Union of India [Shanti Sports Club v. Union of India, (2009) 15 SCC 705 : (2009) 5 SCC (Civ) 707] .)"
43. In Doiwala Sehkari Shram Samvida Samiti Ltd. v. State of Uttaranchal [Doiwala Sehkari Shram Samvida Samiti Ltd. v. State of Uttaranchal, (2007) 11 SCC 641] , this Court in the context of negative equality observed thus : (SCC pp. 655-56, para 28) "28. This Court in Union of India v. International Trading Co. [Union of India v. International Trading Co., (2003) 5 SCC 437] has held that two wrongs do not make one right. The appellant cannot claim that since something wrong has been done in another case, directions should be given for doing another wrong. It would not be setting a wrong right but could be perpetuating another wrong and in such matters, there is no discrimination involved. The concept of PUNIT KUMAR MISHRA equal treatment on the logic of Article 14 cannot be pressed into service in such cases. But the concept of equal treatment presupposes existence of similar legal foothold. It does not countenance repetition of a wrong action to bring wrongs on a par. The affected parties have to establish strength of their case on some other basis and not by claiming negative quality. In view of the law laid down by this Court in the above matter, the submission of the appellant has no force. In case, some of the persons have been granted permits wrongly, the appellant cannot claim the benefit of the wrong done by the Government."
45. In Kulwinder Pal Singh v. State of Punjab [Kulwinder Pal Singh v. State of Punjab, (2016) 6 SCC 532 : (2016) 2 SCC (L&S) 102] , this Court while relying upon State of U.P. v. Rajkumar Sharma [State of U.P. v. Rajkumar Sharma, (2006) 3 SCC 330 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 565] , observed as under : (Kulwinder Pal Singh case [Kulwinder Pal Singh v. State of Punjab, (2016) 6 SCC 532 : (2016) 2 SCC (L&S) 102] , SCC pp. 539-40, para 16) "16. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that when the other candidates were appointed in the post against dereserved category, the same benefit should also be extended to the appellants. Article 14 of the Constitution of India is not to perpetuate illegality and it does not envisage negative equalities. In State of U.P. v. Rajkumar Sharma [State of U.P. v. Rajkumar Sharma, (2006) 3 SCC 330 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 565] it was held as under : (SCC p. 337, para 15) „15. Even if in some cases appointments have been made by mistake or wrongly, that does not confer any right on another person. Article 14 of the Constitution does not envisage negative equality, and if the State committed the mistake it cannot be Page 56 of 58 forced to perpetuate the same mistake. (See Sneh Prabha v. State of U.P. [Sneh Prabha v. State of U.P., (1996) 7 SCC 426] ; Jaipur Development Authority v. Daulat Mal Jain [Jaipur Development Authority v. Daulat Mal Jain, (1997) 1 SCC 35] ; State of Haryana v. Ram Kumar Mann [State of Haryana v. Ram Kumar Mann, (1997) 3 SCC 321 :
1997 SCC (L&S) 801] ; Faridabad CT Scan Centre v. D.G. Health Services [Faridabad CT Scan Centre v. D.G. Health Services, (1997) 7 SCC 752] ; Jalandhar Improvement Trust v. Sampuran Singh [Jalandhar Improvement Trust v. Sampuran Singh, (1999) 3 SCC 494] ; State of Punjab v. Rajeev Sarwal [State of Punjab v. Rajeev Sarwal, (1999) 9 SCC 240 : 1999 SCC (L&S) 1171] ; Yogesh Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi) [Yogesh Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2003) 3 SCC 548 :
2003 SCC (L&S) 346] ; Union of India v. International Trading Co. [Union of India v. International Trading PUNIT KUMAR Co., (2003) 5 SCC 437] and Kastha Niwarak MISHRA Grahnirman Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit v. Indore Development Authority [Kastha Niwarak Grahnirman Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit v. Indore Development Authority, (2006) 2 SCC 604] .)"
43. Merely because some persons have been granted benefit illegally or by mistake, it does not confer any right upon the applicants to claim equality."
44. Further, the reply of the Hon'ble Railway Minister on administrative side regarding CCAA and the applicants do not come under this category as per the Advertisement. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicants are no help to him.
45. In view of the above foregoing discussions, no case is made out for any interference by this Tribunal. Therefore, all the Original Applications are liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, all the Original Applications stand dismissed.
46. Interim orders, if any, in all the cases, stand vacated.
47. Registry of CAT Allahabad Bench is directed to transmit the Original record of aforesaid Original Applications along with the Page 57 of 58 report of Committee, which is under a sealed cover envelop to the Registry of CAT Lucknow Bench, through special messenger.
Thereafter, the Registry of CAT Lucknow Bench is directed to hand over the sealed cover report of Committee to counsel for the Railways/Railway Recruitment Board Allahabad, which was submitted by the them at the time of hearing of the cases.
48. All MAs pending in this O.A. also stand disposed off.
49. No order as to costs.
PUNIT KUMAR MISHRA (Anjani Nandan Sharan) (Justice Rajiv Joshi) Member(Administrative) Member (Judicial) PM/ Page 58 of 58