Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Kiran Rathore vs General Manager, N E Rly on 8 July, 2025
OA No. 985 of 2021
(Reserved on 02.07.2025)
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ALLAHABAD BENCH
ALLAHABAD.
Allahabad, this the 08th day of July, 2025.
Original Application No. 330/00985/2021
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (Judicial)
Hon'ble Mr. Mohan Pyare, Member (Administrative)
1. Kiran Rathore D/o Ram pal Rathore r/o Mahalau Road no.1 Izzatnagar
Bareilly.
2. Deepika Rastogi D/o Santosh Kumar Rastogi R/o Arya Samaj Mandir Air
force Gate Izzatnagar Bareilly.
3. Aayushi Jauhari D/o Vinay Kumar R/o 185 Bibizui Chauraha, Anandpuram
Colony, Shahjahanpur.
4. Jyoti Lakra D/o Suresh Lakra R/o 67 Krishna Nagar Road no.7 Pratap
Singh Memorial School Bareilly.
5. Lalit Sharma S/o Shiv Dayal Sharma R/o 286 Saidupur, Lashkariganj,
Mohenpur, Bareilly.
6. Kunal Deep S/o Saiyan R/o M/107/c Railway Hospital Colony, Izzazat
Nagar, Bareilly.
7. Abhishek Gill S/o Jasbir Singh Gill R/o 40/16 Shivshakti Nagar,
Brahampuri, Meerut city, Meerut.
8. Abhinav Sharma S/o Ram Swaroop Sharma R/o y 47 Shastri Nagar,
Izzatnagar, Bareilly.
9. Pramod Kumar S/o Sudarshan Prasad R/o Rahepura Road Reshma
Hospital, Basant Bihar, Pphase 2 Bareilly.
10. Mohit Pandey S/o Sanjay Kumar Pandey R/o Prayagdaspur Dham,
Gyanpur, Sant Ravidas Nagar.
11. Mohd. Talib S/o Mazrul Hasan, R/o Moh-Beech Thok, Bhargain Mashrak
Kasganj.
12. Mayank Sharma S/o Ramsevak Sharma R/o 289, Chahbai, Bareilly.
.......Applicants.
By Advocate : Shri Santosh Kumar Kushwaha
Shri Shams Vikas
VERSUS
1. Union of India, through Chairman Railway Board, Rail Bhavan, New
Delhi.
2. The Secretary, Railway Board, Rail Bhavan, New Delhi.
RAJEEV KUMAR Page 1 of 7
MISHRA
OA No. 985 of 2021
3. General Manager, North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur.
4. The Chief Personnel officer, North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur.
....Respondents
By Advocate: Shri Hari Om Ojha
ORDER
By Hon'ble Mr. Mohan Pyare, Member (Administrative):
Shri Shams Vikas, learned counsel for the applicants and Shri Hari Om Ojha, learned counsel for the respondents are present.
2. By means of this OA, the applicants have sought the following reliefs :
"(i) Issue a suitable direction commanding the respondents to engage the applicants as substitutes in Group D posts in Railway establishment.
(ii) Issue any other suitable direction which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case..
(iii) Award the cost of this original application to the applicants."
3. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant Nos. 1 to 8 had applied for apprenticeship in Mechanical/diesel shed North Eastern Railway Izzatnagar, Bareilly in pursuant to the advertisement dated 23.11.2016 issued by responded no.4 and completed Railway Act Apprentice's under the Apprenticeship Act, 1961 from North Eastern Railway and are holding 'National Apprenticeship Certificate's granted by National Council of Vocational Training, Ministry of Skill Development, Government of India. The applicant Nos. 9 to 12 had also applied for apprenticeship in Mechanical/diesel shed North Eastern Railway Izzatnagar, Bareilly in pursuant to the advertisement dated 07.07.2015 issued by responded no.4 and completed the same. The Respondent No. 1 has withdrawn the Circular/Notification dated 21.06.2004 (R.B.E. No.136/2004) on 12.04.2017.
4. Heard the rival submissions.
RAJEEV KUMAR Page 2 of 7
MISHRA OA No. 985 of 2021
5. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that Respondent No.1, through various circulars dated 26.08.1996 and 13.07.1999, directed that Course Completed Act Apprentices trained in Railway Establishments be given preference in recruitment to Group „C‟ and „D‟ posts over non-certified candidates. Subsequently, Circular dated 21.06.2004 (R.B.E. No. 136/2004) permitted their engagement as substitutes in Group „D‟ posts under administrative exigencies, which was withdrawn on 12.04.2017. The revised policy R.B.E. No. 71/2016 dated 21.06.2016 is not applicable to the applicants since the advertisement for their engagement was issued on 23.11.2016, when the earlier circular was still in force and the revised policy was neither referenced nor made applicable. It is further submitted that advertisement for training in respect of applicant Nos. 9 to 12 was issued on 07.07.2015 which is much prior to the revised policy dated 21.06.2016 therefore by stretch of no imagination, policy dated 21.06.2016 can be applied upon them. Therefore, the respondents have failed to consider these trained apprentices for Group „D‟ posts, while continuing to appoint similarly placed candidates in other zones even after the revised policy. It is also submitted that since 2006, several vacancies have been sent to RRBs/RRCs by General Managers without considering these apprentices, despite existing service exigencies. Hence, this OA.
6. Learned counsel for the applicants has relied upon the order dated 28.06.2023 passed by Jabalpur Bench of this Tribunal in OA No.200/786/2017.
7. The respondents have strongly refuted the contention of applicant by filing counter affidavit in which they have submitted that as per the notification dated 23.11.2016 the applications were called from the eligible RAJEEV KUMAR Page 3 of 7 MISHRA OA No. 985 of 2021 candidates for apprenticeship with terms and conditions. Apart from all details with terms and conditions, it was clearly mentioned that the trainees will not be eligible to claim appointment in railway just because of completion of training (apprenticeship). In pursuance of aforesaid notification, the candidates had submitted an affidavit stating that they will never claim appointment on the basis of training (apprenticeship) in future. It is also submitted that the competent authority issued an order dated 16.6.2017 in favour of applicants for training and after medical fitness the competent authority vide order dated 29.6.2017 directed the applicants to report immediately before the concerned authority. It is submitted that no such appointment have been made in Izzatnagar Division of N.E. Railway. Therefore, the respondent has not committed any illegality or infirmity in the present case. The applicants are not entitled for any relief claimed in the OA. On the basis of above discussions, learned counsel for the respondents has requested to dismiss the OA.
8. In rejoinder affidavit, the applicants have reiterated the same facts as given in the OA and added that substitutes were regularly engaged in group D post according to the circular/notification dated 21.06.2004 (R.B.E.No.136/2004) and substitutes were engaged in railway establishment on regular scale of pay and allowances applicable to posts falling vacant because of absence on leave or otherwise of permanent or temporary railway servant. He further submits that many course completed act apprentices were engaged as substitutes in group D post under General Manager. It is further submitted that respondents are illegally and arbitrarily not engaging the applicants as substitutes in group D posts whereas numerous vacancies are available, therefore, the instant OA should be allowed.
RAJEEV KUMAR Page 4 of 7
MISHRA OA No. 985 of 2021
9. Considered the rival submissions and verified the documents available on record.
10. The close perusal of the documents reveal that there is a condition stipulated in the notification dated 23.11.2016 at Sl. No.27 that trainees will not gain any right to get job in Railway on successful completion of training. The individuals have also filed an affidavit mentioning that they will not claim any appointment on the basis of above training, which is mentioned at Sl.No.6 of the affidavit (affidavit of applicant No.8 i.e. Abhinav Sharma). In their rejoinder, the applicants have simply denied the contents of para 28 of the counter affidavit mentioning the above fact that the applicant shall not claim job on the basis of successful completion of their training.
11. The applicants have relied on the order passed by Jabalpur Bench of this Tribunal decided on 28.06.2023 in which the respondents were directed to consider the claim of the applicants. The applicants in the above OA have completed their training during 2009-2011 and have passed the trade test before May, 2011. This is prior to the RBE No.34/2017.
12. It is relevant here to reproduced the RBE No.34/2017 dated 12.04.2017 withdrawing the benefits grated in RBE No.136/2004, which is reproduced as under :-
Government of India (Bharat Sarkar) Ministry of Railways (Rail Mantralaya) (Railway Board) (RBE No. 34/2017) No. E(MPP)2009/6/14 Pt. New Delhi, Dated 12.4.2017 The General Managers, All Indian Railways including Production Units.
Sub: Engagement of Act Apprentices in erstwhile Group 'D' Substitute.
Pursuant to amendment in the Apprentices Act, 1961, Board has issued instructions vide RBE No.71/2016 (E(NG)II/2016/RR-1/8 dated 21.06.2016), RAJEEV KUMAR Page 5 of 7 MISHRA OA No. 985 of 2021 providing that 20% of the vacancies in case of direct recruitment to posts/categories in Pay Band-1 of Rs 5,200-20,200 having Grade Pay of Rs 1800/-shall be filled giving preference to Course Completed Act Apprentices (CCAAS) trained in Railway establishments and possessing National Apprenticeship Certificate (NAC).
In view of the above, the instructions of Board vide E(MPP)/2002/12/26/ Vol.II dated 21.06.04 (RBE. No. 136/2004) stand withdrawn with immediate effect.
13. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court while considering the issue in the case of Manjit and others Vs. Union of India and another (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 78 of 2021, decided on 29th January, 2021 has observed that "Noticing the above decision, this Court, in its order dated 6 March 2019, specifically observed that since the Scheme stands terminated and is no longer in existence, nothing further need be done in the matter. The Scheme provided for an avenue of a back door entry into the service of the railways. This would be fundamentally at odds with Article 16 of the Constitution. The Union Government has with justification discontinued the scheme. The petitioners can claim neither a vested right nor a legitimate expectation under such a Scheme. All claims based on the Scheme must now be closed."
14. Taking ratio in the above the judgment of Hon‟ble Supreme Court and going into the facts available in this OA in which the applicants have completed their Apprenticeship training after the scheme has been withdrawn by the RBE No.34/2017, applicants have no vested right in claiming their job on the basis of RBE existing prior to RBE No.34/2017. The facts in judgment in OA NO.200/786/2017 of Jabalpur Bench of this Tribunal is different and does not cover the facts of this OA. Moreover, the advertisement for the Apprenticeship training in respect of the above applicants clearly stipulates that the applicants shall not claim any job in Railway on the basis of RAJEEV KUMAR Page 6 of 7 MISHRA OA No. 985 of 2021 successful completion of this Apprenticeship training and the applicants have given their affidavit also on the similar facts.
15. On the basis of above discussions, it is established that the applicants have not been able to make a favourable case for the relief claimed in their OA. The OA is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the OA is dismissed. No order as to costs.
16. All MAs pending in this O.A. also stand disposed off.
(Mohan Pyare) (Justice Om Prakash VII)
Member(Administrative) Member(Judicial)
RKM/
RAJEEV KUMAR Page 7 of 7
MISHRA