Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Harpal Singh vs M/O Defence on 3 November, 2015
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
OA No.1353 of 2014
Orders reserved on : 2.11.2015.
Orders pronounced on : 03.11.2015
HON'BLE MR. SHEKHAR AGARWAL, MEMBER (A)
HON'BLE DR. BRAHM AVTAR AGRAWAL, MEMBER (J)
1. Harpal Singh S/o Sh. Bhola Ram,
Presently r/o c/o Sh. Puran Singh,
Vill. Bamnoli, Dwarka Sector-28,
P.O. Pochanpur, Delhi.
2. Parmod Kumar S/o Sh. Om Parkash Singh,
Presently r/o c/o Sh. Ashok Kumar
H.No.C-79, Gali No.4, Rao Vihar,
Nangloi, Delhi-110041.
... Applicants
(By Advocate: Shri Yogesh Sharma)
Versus
1. Union of India through the Secretary
Ministry of Defence, Govt. of India,
South Block, New Delhi.
2. Chief of the Navel Staff,
Ministry of Defence,
Naval Headquarter, New Delhi.
3. The Admiral Superintendent,
Naval Dockyard, Vishakapatnam-520014.
... Respondents
[[[[ (By Advocate : Shri Subhash Gosai)
ORDER
MR. SHEKHAR AGARWAL, MEMBER (A) :
The applicant No.1 completed his apprentice training at Naval Dockyard, Vishakhapatnam from 13.4.2007 to 12.4.2008 in the Trade of Machinist. The applicant no.2 completed apprentice training in the same Dockyard during the same period in the Trade of Refrigerator and Air Condition Mechanic. According to them, both were waiting for their absorption in the aforesaid Dockyard against the posts of 2 OA 1353/2014 Trademan (Skilled) as there was a provision in the rules to absorb the Ex. Apprentice in the same Dockyard where a person got his training. The applicants have further submitted that in the years 2008-09 and 2009-10 vacancies arose in another Dockyard but the applicants were not considered because those vacancies were reserved for apprentices of those Dockyards only. In April 2012, the applications were invited for absorption of Ex. Naval Apprentices of Vishakhapatnam Dockyard. However, the applicants could not be absorbed because their seniors were available and consequently their turn did not come as per the seniority position. Their grievance is that now the respondents have issued the impugned advertisement inviting applications from open market from all over India thereby taking away chance of the applicants for absorption. Hence, they have filed this OA seeking the following relief:-
"(i) That the Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to pass an order of quashing the impugned advertisement of Navel Dockyard Vishakhapatnam recruitment 2013 declaring to the effect that the same is illegal and arbitrary and consequently pass an order directing the respondents to issue a fresh advertisement to fill up the vacant posts by way of absorption of Ex. Naval Apprentice of Dockyard Apprentice School (DAS), Vishakhapatnam only as done in previous years and consequently consider the case of the applicants for their absorption against a post of Trademan (Skilled) at an early date.
(ii) Any other relief which the Hon'ble Tribunal deem fit and proper may also be granted to the applicants along with the costs of litigation."3 OA 1353/2014
2. The respondents have filed their reply as well as additional affidavit. According to them, the terms and conditions with regard to the employment of Apprentice is governed by Section 22 (1) of the Apprentices Act 1961. According to which it was not obligatory on the part of the employer to offer any employment to any Apprentice. Further they have stated that prior to filing of this OA, Recruitment Rules as defined in SRO150/2000 as amended vide SRO 262/2002 were in force. The said SRO provided for filling up of 60% of vacancies by absorption of Ex. Apprentices. As long as said SRO in force the Ex. Apprentices were being absorbed. The applicants herein also had fair opportunity to participate in the absorption process. However, now revised rules for recruitment of Trademan have been promulgated by the Government of India vide SRO No.42/2012 dated 8.5.2012. These rules are statutory in nature and have been promulgated under Article 309. The revised rules now specify that 60% of vacancies are to be filled from amongst all the candidates holding the National Apprenticeship Certificate (NAC). Balance 40% vacancies are to be filled by promotion. The rules have also specified a uniform age for recruitment. In view of change in the rules, the submission of the applicants cannot be agreed to.
3. With their additional affidavit, the respondents have enclosed a judgment of Hyderabad Bench of this Tribunal 4 OA 1353/2014 dated 30.1.2015 in OA Nos.336, 337, 339, 348,349, 350, 351, 525 of 2014, the operative part of which reads as follows:-
"In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we hold the action on the part of the respondents in filling up of the vacancies (Trademan) published in Employment News dated 20-26th April, 2013 as per Integrated Headquarters Ministry of Defence (Navy) Group 'C' Industrial Posts (Tradesmen) Recruitment Rules, 2012 (SRO 43) as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the recruitment rules as on the date of the vacancies, since the vacancies which are notified / published in the Employment News dated 20-26th April, 2013 are pre-2012. Accordingly, we direct the respondents to fill up the vacancies which are occurred prior to 2012 published in the Employment News dated 20-26th April, 2013 by following the Integrated Headquarters Ministry of Defence (Navy) Group 'C' Industrial Posts (Tradesmen) Recruitment Rules, 2000 (SRO-150) as interpreted by this Tribunal in OA No.51/2008 and batch vide order dated 1-3-2010 on the file of this Bench, if they are otherwise eligible."
4. By the above Order, directions have been given to the respondents that pre-2012 vacancies which were advertised in Employment News dated 20-26th April, 2013 be filled in accordance with SRO 150/2000 as amended vide SRO 262/2002 prior to issuance of SRO 43/2012.
5. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the applicants prayed that the applicants herein be extended the same benefits as have been granted to the applicants of OAs mentioned above by Hyderabad Bench of this Tribunal. Counsel for the respondents did not dispute that the case of the applicants was similar to the applicants of OAs before the Hyderabad Bench (supra).
5 OA 1353/2014
6. Accordingly, we dispose of this OA with directions to the respondents to accord the same benefits to the applicants herein as have been accorded to the applicants of OA Nos. 336, 337, 339, 348,349, 350, 351, 525 of 2014 by Hyderabad Bench of this Tribunal. No costs.
(Dr. BRAHM AVTAR AGRAWAL) (SHEKHAR AGARWAL)
MEMBER (J) MEMBER (A)
/ravi/