Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Union Of India & Ors vs Sheshnsrsyan Tiwari & Anr on 5 March, 2018
Bench: Chief Justice, Vinit Kumar Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4797 / 2008
1. Union of India through the General Manager, North Western
Railway, Jaipur.
2. The Senior Divisional Superintending Engineer (Co-ord.),
North Western Railway, Jodhpur.
3. The Divisional Personnel Officer, North Western Railway,
Jodhpur.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Sheshnarayan Tiwari S/o Shri Heera Lal Tiwari Inder Singh,
resident of E-16, Railway Colony, Raikabagh, Jodhpur.
2. Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur,
through its Registrar.
----Respondent
_____________________________________________________
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Kamal Dave
For Respondent(s) : Mr.J.K.Kaushik
_____________________________________________________
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Order 05/03/2018
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The respondent was a temporary Fitter Grade III (a skilled artisan post) with the North Western Railway and was permitted to appear in the examination conducted under 25% quota and was found suitable for being appointed in the 25% quota of skilled artisan vide order dated 21.11.1990.
3. On 12.08.2004 he was regularized as a Fitter Grade III. Later on vide order dated 11.05.2005, taking the view that since the respondent did not have ITI qualification he could not be (2 of 3) [CW-4797/2008] selected as a skilled artisan and made permanent as a Fitter Grade III, the order dated 12.08.2004 was withdrawn.
4. The respondent challenged the same.
5. Para 159 of IREM came up for consideration before the tribunal. It reads as under:-
"159. (1) The vacancies in the category of Skilled Artisan in scale Rs. 950-1500 in various Engineering Department will be filled as under:-
i. 25% by selection from course completed 'Act Apprentices', ITI passed candidates and Matriculates from the open market; serving employees who are course completed Act Apprentices or ITI qualified could be considered against the quota allowing age relaxation as applicable to serving employees.
ii. 25% from serving Khalasis and Khalasi Helpers (formerly known as unskilled and semi- skilled respectively) with educational qualification as laid down in Apprentices Act.
iii. 50% by promotion of staff in the lower grade as per the prescribed procedure.
(2) Age : For direct recruitment will be between 18 and 25 years.
(3) The period of training for direct recruits will vary depending on the qualifications of recruits. The same will be as under:
(i). Course completed Act Apprentices trained in Railway Establishments. - Nil.
(ii). Course completed Act Apprentices training in non-Railway Establishments.- 6 months.
(iii). ITI passed candidates.- 6 months.
(iv). Matriculates.- 3 years."
6. The word 'and' in the second line of Para 159 (1) (i) came up for consideration. The tribunal held that the word 'and' has to be (3 of 3) [CW-4797/2008] read as 'or' and for which the tribunal relied upon para 3 which envisages 3 years training for matriculates and 6 months training for ITI passed candidates.
7. In that view of the matter the contention urged by the appellants that para 159 (1) (i), while referring to ITI passed candidates means that they have to be matriculate and hence the word 'and' has to be read as 'or' was negated.
8. In our opinion the para in question can be read to mean that in the 25% quota by selection the eligible candidates would be: (i) Course completed 'Act Apprentices'; (ii) ITI passed candidates; and (iii) matriculates from the open market.
9. It is settled law that where a field is open to candidates from the open market even departmental candidates can compete in the quota provided they fulfill other eligibility conditions. So looked, the respondent being a matriculate would be entitled to compete in the 25% selection quota and being a matriculate would have to undergo a training period of 3 years.
10. Thus we do not find any infirmity in the view taken by the tribunal and the writ petition is accordingly dismissed. (VINIT KUMAR MATHUR)J. (PRADEEP NANDRAJOG)CJ. Kshama Dixit 27