Central Administrative Tribunal - Mumbai
Ajay Kumar vs M/O Railways on 23 October, 2018
1 OA No.638/2018
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
MUMBAI BENCH, MUMBAI.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.638/2018
Date of Decision: 23.10.2018.
CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI R. VIJAYKUMAR, MEMBER (A)
HON'BLE SMT RAVINDER KAUR, MEMBER (J)
Ajay Kumar,
S/o. Daya Ram,
R/o. Railway Quarter No.RB-II/33A,
T.R.D. Railway Colony,
Lalitpur, U.P. - 284 403. ... Applicant
(Advocate by Shri Pawan Pandey )
Versus
1. Union of India,
Through the Secretary,
Ministry of Railway,
Rail Bhawan,
Raisina Road,
New Delhi - 110 001.
2. Railway Recruitment Board
Through its Secretary,
Railway Division Office Compound
Mumbai Central,
Mumbai - 400 202. ... Respondents
ORDER (Oral)
Per : Shri R. Vijaykumar Member (A)
Heard learned counsel for the applicant. The applicant has obtained State Trade Certificate issued by the State Council for Vocational Training, Uttar Pradesh that he had passed the trade test in the trade of "MECH. REPAIR AND MAINTANCE (L.M.B)" after attending over a period of 2 OA No.638/2018 one year. He claims that this is equivalent to Mechanic Motor Vehicle requirement advertised by respondents in their Employment Notification for Assistant Loco Pilot dated 18.01.2014. He, therefore, sought the following reliefs:-
(a) Direct the respondents to allow the present application and appointment may be made as per his qualification on the post of Assistant Loco Pilot.
(b) Pass such other or further orders which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."
2. The main argument relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant is that he has obtained under RTI a letter dated 04.05.2017 from the DGT, Ministry of Skill Development and Entrepreneurship as follows:-
" Please refer to RTI Application No.MSDE/R/2017/80031 dated 20.02.2017. In this regard, it is informed that the sought information is related to Recruitment Rule of Railway Board. No such type information is available in this Directorate.
However, NTC issued under
CTS for Mechanic Repair &
Maintenance LMV trade as a
recognised qualification for the purpose of recruitment to subordinate posts and services under Central and State 3 OA No.638/2018 Governments."
3. The applicant has not enclosed the nature of application which he had made under RTI which would reveal the nature of the question that he had posed to that department while obtaining an answer. Therefore, the context of the reply is not quite apparent. However, it is clear from the reply that the department has stated that it is not concerned with issues relating to the Railways. They have only stated that NTC issued under CTS (also not explained) for Mechanic Repair and Maintenance LMV trade is recognised for subordinate posts in the Central and State Governments. However, this cannot be applied pari passu to the Railways. In case the applicant was so convinced by this letter, he should have approached the Railways between 05.05.2017 when that letter was issued and obtained their reply which he has failed to do and for which he had a duty of first recourse under the Administrative Tribunals Act. From that point of view, this OA is premature.
4. However, considering that he had 4 OA No.638/2018 already been redirected by the Allahabad Bench of this Tribunal on 23.05.2018, we also consider that the applicant's certificate is itself highly defective and raises serious questions on its validity. Further, the applicant has referred to a Gazette Notification of 07.11.2007 which he has not cared to enclose but which apparently reduced the tenure for "Mechanic Motor Cycle" from two years to one year and six months and for which the ITI reduced it for only twelve months. Firstly, the applicant himself admits that this relates to Mechanic Motor Cycle which is quite distinct from a car and even more distinct from a train locomotive.
5. It is settled law that the applicant has to meet the strict terms of the Notification which also binds the respondents. In the present case, the applicant is nowhere near fulfilling any of the terms of the Notification issued by the respondents and prima facie, this application has no basis in fact or in law nor from any aspect of reasonableness.
6. The Original Application is, 5 OA No.638/2018 accordingly, dismissed. Considering that the applicant has already ventured far from his residence, no costs are imposed.
(Smt Ravinder Kaur) (R. Vijaykumar) Member (J) Member (A) ma.