Central Administrative Tribunal - Hyderabad
K Prem Kumar vs M/O Defence on 27 December, 2018
W
oA/20/295/2014 & oN20/622/2017
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIB
UNAL
HYDERABAD BENCH
HYDERABAD
o A/20 /29 5 t201 4 & O A/20 / 622 /201 7
Orders Reserved Onz 17ll2/201g
Date of Order : 27/l2l20lg
Between
OA ./020 /2 9s/20t4
I Hariyala Das Kumar,
S/o. Danayya,
Aged about 42 years,
Occ: Welder, D.No.37-l 3-61 I/3,
Pragathinagar, Kapparada _II,
NGO's Colony, Visakhapatnarn _ 530 007.
2 Suggu Kameswara Rao,
S/o.Krishna Murthy,
Aged about 38 years,
Occ: Welder,
Pragathinagar, Kotipalli Village,
Vadada (PO), Badangi,yiziaiagaram_ 535 124.
3 Sesetti Adinarayana,
S/o. Venkataramana,
Aged about 39 years,
Occ: Welder , Kummaristreet,
Yelamanchali, Visakhapatnani 53 1 055.
-
4 Bandaru Rajeswara Rao,
S/o. Satyarao,
Aged about 40 years,
Occ: Welder, D.No. l4-7-7(2/l),
Anthonynagar, Maharanipeta,
Visakhapatnam - 530 002.
5 Mugada Srinubabu,
S/o. Late China Sanyasi,
Aged about 39 years,
Occ: Welder, D.No.9-95, Rushikonda,
Visakhapatnam - 530 045.
Page 1 of 20
o Al20 t29 5 t20 | 4 & O N20t622/2017
I
6 Kona Srinivasa Rao,
S/o. Satyam,
Aged about 38 years,
Occ: Welder, D.No.8- 1 8-420/4, ".r\
VT Agraharam, Rongalistreet,
Yizianagaram - 535 004. p
o
7 Penumathasa Venugopala Raj Lr,
S/o. P. Venkateswara Raju,
Aged about 39 years,
Occ: Welder, D.No.36-90-21/1,
Sri Srinivasa Nilyam, Sri Nagar,
I(ancharapalern, Visakhapatnam - 530 008.
8 Chukka M Sasikumar,
S/o. Apparao,
Aged about 40 years,
Occ:Welder, D.No.34- 1 2- 14,
Holy Cross Street, Gnanapurarn,
Visakhapatnam - 530 004.
9 Gude Appala Satyanarayana,
S/o.Late Veerajau,
Aged about 39 years,
Occ: Welder, D.No.33- 1 4-245lA,
Allipuram, Main Road,
Visakhapatnam - 530 004.
10. Mangalagiri Madhava Rao,
S/o. Late Suryanarayana,
Aged about 39 years,
Occ: Welder, D.No.20-99-60,
Relliveedhi, Jabbarthota, Near AVN College,
Visakhapatnam - 530 001.
11. Mutcha Ananda Rao,
S/o. Late Lingayya,
Aged about 39 years,
Occ: Welder, D.No.44- l-33l2,
Laxminarayanapuram, Kailasapuram Road,
Visakhapatnam - 530 024.
t2. Gajjana Ananda Rao,
S/o. Late Surannaidu,
Aged about 40 years,
Occ: Welder, D.No.57-4-3816,
Durganagar, Kancharapalem,
Visakhapatnam - 530 008.
Page 2 oI 20
o At20t29 5 120 1 4 & O A/20 I 622t20 I 7
13. Ramadalai Rarnesh,
S/o.Suryanarayana,
Aged about 39 years,
Occ: Welder, D.No.57-25-615,
Tummadapalem, Kancharapalem,
Visakhapatnam - 530 008.
t4. Kallempudi Ravi Kumar, {Sg-l
S/o.Surya Prakasa Rao,
Aged about 38 years,
Occ: Welder, D.No.37-l l-178,
Behind Govt. Polytechnic College,
PR Gardents, Visakhapatnam - 530 007.
15. Naremasetti Venkata Rama Chandra Rao,
S/o.Late Subba Rao,
Aged about 38 years,
Occ: Welder, D.No.5 I - 1 3- I 6,
Indiragandhi Statue backside, Nakkavanipalem,
Visakhapatnam - 530 013.
16. Pyla Rambabu,
S/o. Suri Appalanaidu,
Aged about 37 years,
Occ: Welder, D.No.29-10-9, Lalitha Colony,
Dabagardents, Visakhapatnam - 530 020.
17. Patta Kanaka Raju,
S/o.Guruvulu,
Aged about 39 years,
Occ: Welder, D.No. LIG-II/58, API{B Colony,
PM Palem, Visakhapatnam - 530 041.
18. Killada Santhi Manoj Kumar,
S/o. Bhaskara Rao,
Aged about 36 years,
Occ: Welder, D.No.MIG-I 239,
Phase-III, VUDA Colony,
Tummadapalem, Kancharapalem,
Yizianagaram.
19. Pulla Chandra Rao,
S/o.Nooku Naidu,
Aged about 36 years,
Occ: Welder, D.No.57 -1 4-221 1,
Subhash Nagar, Kancharapalem,
Visakhapatnam - 530 008.
Page 3 of 20
o Al20 /29 5 I 20 1 4 & O Al 20 / 622 I 201 7
20. Partapu Prasada Rao,
S/o.Late Sunara Rao,
Aged about 35 years,
Occ: Welder, D.No.50-64-261 101 l,
Seethampeta, Relliveedi,
Visakhapatnam - 530 016. , -: ,.
21. Kudara Venkata Rao,
S/o.Kullayya,
Aged about 36 years,
Occ: Welder, M. Kotapadu (Village & Posts),
KJ. Puram (SO), V. Madugula (Md),
Visakhapatnam - 531 028.
22. Rongala Venkata Ramana,
S/o.Kistamma,
Aged about 40 years,
Occ: Welder, D.No.6-38-30/1/A,
LV Nagar, Old Ganuwaka,
Visakhapatnam - 531 028.
23. Ambati Ganga Raju,
S/o. Suryanarayana,
Aged about 40 years,
Occ: Welder, D.No.9-4-285l2, Krishna Nagar,
-
High School Road, Visakhapatnam 530 026.
4,1
MD. Habib, S/o.MD Abbas,
Aged about 40 years,
Occ: Welder, D.No. l3- I I - l0/2, BC Road,
Aruna Lodge Street, New Gajuwaka,
Visakhapatnam - 530 026.
25. Varada Srinivasa Rao,
S/o.Venkatarao,
Aged about 4l years,
Occ: Welder, D.No.10-5-30, Kailash Nagar,
Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam - 530 026.
26. Mirza Mohammad Ali Mazindrani,
S/o.Mohammad Hadi,
Aged about 4l years,
Occ: Welder, D.No.87-3-615,
l " Floor, Rahamath Nagar Colony,
Behind GVS Complex, RTC Complex Road,
Rajahmundry - 533 103.
PaEe 4 oI Z0
o At20 129 5 /20t 4 & O At 20 I 622t201 7
27. Janapareddy Koteswara Rao,
S/o.Appa Rao
Aged about 38 years,
Occ: Welder, D.No.5-4-l 85, I
Bapuji Nagar, Lawsonsbay Colony (Post), I
Visakhapatnam - 530 017.
28. Sreesailam Ramchandra Rao,
S/o.Venkata Rao,
Aged about 39 years,
Occ: Welder, D.No.58-30-13, Saketha Puram,
NAD Post, Visakhapatnam - 530 009.
29. Salugu Sridhar,
S/o.Lakshnamurthy,
Aged about 38 years,
Occ: Fitter, D.No.38-3 1-1/1, Green Gardens,
Marripalem, Visakhapatnam - 530 018.
30. Peddireddy Ramesh,
S/o.Chalapathi Rao,
Aged about 35 years,
Occ: Fitter, Yeditha (VIII & Post) Mandapeta,
East Godavari (Dist), PIN -533234.
31. Kadavala Ramesh,
S/o. Krishna Rao,
Aged about 37 years,
Occ: Fitter, D.No.50-95-2lE,
North Extension, Seethammadhara,
Visakhapatnam - 530 013.
32. Polamarasetti Sreenivasa Rao,
S/o.Satyanarayana,
Aged about 37 years,
Occ: Fitter, D.No.1-l 1 7,
Chinthala Agraharam, Vepagunta (Post),
Visakhapatnam - 530 047.
33. Karasi Anil Kumar,
S/o.Rama Rao,
Aged about 38 years,
Occ: Fitter, D.No. 1 0-l -1 8 1/2,
Gayatrinilayam, Near Anjaneya Temple,
Amadalavalasa, Srikakulam - 532 I 85.
Page 5 of 20
o A/20 /295 1201 4 & O At20 I 622/201 7
34. Ruttala Rambabu,
S/o.Subbayya Kaligotlu '"' ...1r,L1
Aged about 37 years,
Occ: Fitter,Post, Lakkavaram, Devarapalli,
Visakhapatnam - 531 075.
35. Darla Srinivasa Rao,
S/o.Appala Raju,
Aged about 37 years,
Occ: Fitter, Main Road Street, K Kotapadu,
Visakhapatnam - 531 034.
36 Salapu Gurumurthy,
S/o.Demudu,
Aged about 36 years,
Occ: Fitter, D.No.6-83,
Padmanabhanagar, RRV Puram,
Visakhapatnam - 530 029.
37. Boya Pavan Kumar,
S/o. Rarnanaidu,
Aged about 38 years,
D.No.2 I - 10 l, Kakani Nagar,
Visakhapatnam - 530 009.
38. Kosana Rami Reddy,
S/o.Suttiyya,
Aged about 33 years,
Occ: Fitter, D.No.Chippada Post & Village,
Bheemunipatnam, Visakhapatnam - 53 1 163.
39. Puppala W Satyanarayana,
S/o.Venkata Ramana,
Aged about 32 years,
Occ: Fitter,, D.No.9-22-37 I I,
CBM Compound, Amarnagar,
Visakhapatnam - 530 003.
40. Ishad Ali, S/o.Abdul Rahim,
Aged about 38 years,
Occ: Fitter, D.No.62-3-i05lA,
New Ramalayam Street, Sriharipuram,
Visakhapatnam - 530 01 1.
41. Tajuddin Baba, S/o. Abdul Subhan,
Aged about 37 years,
Occ : F itter, D.N o.9 -9 -47 12, Mangapuram Colony,
Near Tara Mosque,Visakhapatnam - 530 017.
Page 5 of 20
o At20 t295 t20t 4 & O A/20 I 622t2017
8 Penumathsa Venugopala Raj u,
S/o.P. Venkateswara Raju,
Aged about 39 years,
Occ: Welder, D.No.36-90-2 l/1, I
Sri Srinivasa Nilayam, Sri Nagar,
Kancharapalem, Visakhapatnam -530008. /
9 Chukka M. Sasikumar,
S/o.Apparao,
Aged about 40 years,
Occ: Welder, D.No.34-12-14,
Holy Cross Street, Gnanapuram,
Visakhapatnam .
10. Gude Appala Satyanarayana,
S/o.Late Veeraju,
Aged about 39 years,
Occ: Welder, D.No.33-14-245/A,
Allipuram Main Road,
Visakhapatnam -530 004.
ll. Mangalagiri Madhava Rao,
S/o.Late Suryanarayana,
Aged about390 years,
Occ: Welder, D.No.20-99-60,
Visakhapatnam -530 001 .
12. Gajjana Ananda Rao,
S/o.Late Surannaidu,
Aged about 40 years,
Occ: Welder, D.No.57-4-3816,
Visakhapatnam-530 008 .
13. Ramadalai Ramesh,
S/o.Suryanarayana,
Aged about 39 years,
Occ: Welder, D.No.57-25-615,
Tummadapalem, Kancharapalem,
Visakhapatnam -530 008.
t4. Kallempudi Ravi Kumar,
S/o.Surya Prakasa Rao,
Aged about 38 years,
Occ: Welder, D.No.37-l 1-1 78,
Behind Govt. Polytechnic College,
PR Gardens, Visakhapatnarn - 530 007'
Page 9 of 20
o At20 t29 5 t20 t 4 & O At20 I 6221 201 7
15. Naremasetti Venkata Rama Chandra Rao,
S/o.Late Subba Rao,
Aged about 38 years,
Occ: Welder, D.No.5 l-13-16,
I ndiragandhi Statue backside,
Nakkavanipalem,
Visakhapatnarn - 530 013 .
16. Patta Kanaka Raju,
S/o.Guruvulu,
Aged about 39 years,
Occ: Welder, D.No.LIG-Il/58,
APHB Colony, PM Palem,
Visakhapatnarn 530 041.
t7. Kilada Santhi Manoj Kumar,
S/o.Bhaskara Rao,
Aged about 36 years,
Occ: Welder, D.No. MIG-I 239, Phase-III,
VUDA Colony, Vizianagaram.
18. Pullachandra Rao,
S/o.Nooku Naidu,
Aged about 36 years,
Occ: Welder, D.No.57 -1 4-221 l.
S ubhash Nagar, Kancharapalem,
Visakhapatnam - 530 008.
19. Partapu Prasada Rao,
S/o.Late Sundara Rao,
Aged about 35 years,
Occ: Welder, D.No.50-64-26/l 0/1,
Seethampeta, Relliveedi,
Visakhapatnam -530 026.
20. Rongala venkata Ramana,
S/o.Kistamma,
Aged about 40 years,
Occ: Welder, D.No.6-38-30/l/A,
Visakhapatnam -530 026.
2t. Ambati Ganga Raju,
S/o. Suryanarayana,
Aged about 40 years,
Occ: Welder, D.No.9-4-285l2,
Krishna Nagar, High School Road,
Visakhapatnam.
Page 10 of 20
o N20/29 s I 20 | 4 & O At 20/ 622/2017
22. Varada Srinivasa Rao,
S/o.Venkata Rao,
Aged about 4l years, . l'. ''.
Occ: Welder, D.No. I 0-5-30, . ir r
Kailash Nagar, Gajuwaka, li-,)' ,'
Visakhapatnam -530 026. QlsI
23. Polamarasetti Sreenivasa Rao,
S/o.Satyanarayana,
Aged about 37 years,
Occ: Fitter, D.No.l-1 17, Chinthala Agraharam,
Vepagunta (Post), Visakhapatnam -530 047.
24. Salapu Gurumurthy,
S/o.Demudu,
Aged about 36 years,
Occ: Fitter, D.No.6-83, Padmanabhanagar,
RRV Puram, Visakhapatnam-s3} 029 .
25. Boya Pavan Kumar,
S/o.Ramanaidu,
Aged about 38 years,
D.No.2 1- 101 , Kakani Nagar,
Visakhapatnam -530 009.
26. Kosana Rami Reddy,
S/o.Suttiyya,
Aged about 33 years,
Occ: Fitter, D.No.Chippada Post& Village,
Bheemunipatnam,
Visakhapatnam-53 I I 63.
27. Tajuddin Baba,
S/o.Abdul Subhan,
Aged about 37 years,
Occ: Fitter, D.No.9 -9-47 12,
Mangapuram Colony, Near Tara Mosque,
Visakhapatnam -530 0 17.
28. Potnuru CHV Narasimham,
S/o.Govinda Rao,
Aged about 32 years,
Occ: Fitter, D.No.39-8-51/1, Sector 8,
Near Walkers Park, Muralinagar,
Visakhapatnam -530 007 .
Page 11 of 20
o At2n t29 5 t20t 4 & o At 20 I 622t2017
29. Vasa Ravi Kumar,
S/o.Krishna Rao,
Aged about 38 years, @]
K. Kotapadu Near Post Office,
Visakhapatnam -53 I 034 .
30. Betha Venkata Appa Rao,
S/o.Sanyasi Rao,
Aged about 40 years,
D.No.45-2-5 8/1, Ramachandranagar,
Akkayyapalem,
Visakhapatnam -530 0 I 6.
31. Mandava Nagasai Krishna,
S/o.Madhusudhana Rao,
Aged about 38 years,
D.No.3 7-6-63l1, Satyanagar, Muralinagar,
Visakhapatnam - 530 007.
32 Pentakota Jagadeeswara Rao,
S/o.Suryanarayana,
Aged about 37 years,
D.No. 1 8-42, Kasibatla Street, Gavarapeta,
Khasimkota, Visakhapatnam - 53 I 03 l.
33. Israpu Srinivasa Rao,
S/o.Appa Rao,
Aged about 40 years,
D.No.36-94-240/6, Ambedkar Nanar,
Ramj i Estate, Kancharapalem,
Visakhapatnam -530 008.
34. Katta Uma Mahesh,
S/o.K. Koteswara Rao,
Aged about 38 years,
H.No. 3 9-20-4 | I 2, Madhav adhara,
Visakhapatnam-530 007 .
35. Anakapalli Siva,
S/o.Venkata Rao,
Aged about 36 years,
8-57-1 10, Chittivalasa (P),
Bheemuni Pattanam (M),
Visakhapatnam -531 162.
Page L2 ol 20
o At20 t29 5 t201 4 & O At20 I 622/201 7
36. P. Rambabu,
S/o.P. Appala Swami,
Aged about 34 years,
D.No. I - I 27, Keetinpeta,
Bheemili, Visakhapatnam -531 163.
,(il
l:,rr
37. Varasala Kiran Kumar, ?-
S/o.V. Rama Rao,
Aged about 38 years,
,v
40-58-9, Sanjeeva Colony,
Visakhapatnam-530 004 .
38. Nettimi Venkata Uma Maheshwara Rao,
S/o.Appala Swamy,
Aged about 40 years,
H.No.38-19- 1 0l61 1 l l, Jyothi Nagar,
Marripalem, Visakhapatnam -530 0I 8.
39. Charapaka Rama Chandra Rao,
S/o.Kanna Rao,
Aged about 41 years,
H.No.32-5-39, Nathayyapalem, BHPV(PO),
Visakhapatnam -530 012.
Applicants
AND
I The Union of India rep. by its
Secretary to the Government of India,
Ministry of Defence, South Block,
-
New Delhi 110 001.
2 The Chief of Naval Staff,
Integrated Head Quarters,
Ministry of Defence (Navy),
Sena Bhavan, New Delhi - I l0 0l l.
3 The Flag Offi cer Commanding-in-Chiel
Head Quarters, Eastern Naval Command,
Head Quarters, Visakhapatnam - 530 014.
4 The Admiral Superintendent,
Naval Dockyard, Visakhapatnam -530 014.
Respondents
Page 13 of 20
o Al20 /29 5 I 20 | 4 & O At 20 I 622120 I 7
!irtr,
,/i 'e I
() \-i
Counsel for the Applicants Mr. T. Koteswara Rao
CounseI for the Respondents Mrs. K. Rajitha, Sr. CGSC
Mr. R.V. Mallikarjuna Rao,
Sr. PC to CG
CORAM:
Hort'ble Mn Justice L. Narosimho Reddy, Choirman
Hon'ble Mr. B.V. Sudhakor, Admn, Member
ORDER
(Per Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Narasimha Reddy, Chairman) Since common questions of fact and law arise in both the O.As, they are disposed of through a common order.
2. O.A. No.295l2014 is filed with a prayer to declare the 'lntegrated Headquarlers, Ministry of Defence (Navy) Group 'C' Industrial Posts (Tradesmen) Recruitment Rutes, 2012' contained in SRO 4312012 (for short
- 2012 Rules) in so far as they provide for direct recruitment to Non- Selection posts stipulating the educational qualifications, criterion of age for' direct recruitrnent and the consequential Notification published tn Employment News of April 2013 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 16 & 21 of the Constitution of India and quash the same. Further' direction is sought for absorption of the applicants in the posts of Tradesrnen (Skilled) as per the directions issued by this Tribunal in O.A. No.97212011 & /\A -
PaEe L4 of 20 o At20/29 5 /20 | 4 & O At20 I 622t20 t7 batch through a non-selection method, and in accordance with Rules icl contained in SRO 150/2000. rlTi:
a (,a.
3. Almost the same applicants who filed O.A. No.295l2014 filed the O.A. No.622l2017 also. During the pendency of the O.A. No.295l2014, the Recruitment Rules 2012 were amended through SRO 3l/2017. The applicants challenged some of the conditions contained therein particularly as regard the age and the selection criteria for the recruitment of Ex-Naval Apprentices (for short ENAs) for the posts of Tradesmen (Skilled).
4. In the Naval Dockyard, there exist several posts at the lower level. They are categorized as Highly Skilled (Gr.I), Highly Skilled (Gr.II), Skilled and Multi Tasking Staff. There is a facility of apprentice training in the Dockyard. As provided for in the Apprentices Act, the Dockyard made provisions for absorption ofthe apprentices. The filting up ofthe posts under category-Ill i.e. Tradesman (Skilled) was governed by the Rules framed in the year 2000 through SRO No.150/2000. According to those Rules,60% of the posts were to be filled up by absorption of ENAs of tl.re designated trades and remaining 4O%, by promotion from the lower skilled workers with four years of regular service in the grade. If for any reason' the appointment through such process is not possible, provision is made for direct recruitment'
5. In the year 2008 steps were initiated to fill the posts through absorption' However, it was mentioned that the age limit that is applicable fordirectrecruitmentwouldapplyforabsorptionofENAsalso.Someofthe aggrieved Naval apprentices filed O'A' No'51/2008 before Ernakulam Bench \-(.--
Page 15 of 20
,,..- o Al 20 t 29 s n0 1 4 & O N 20 I 622/2A17 a\
the Tribunal. The O.A. was allowed and it was held that the age limit _t- cannot be applied to ENAs particularly, when the Rules did not stipulate any age lirnit. The order passed by the Tribunal became final and the ENAs were absorbed against the vacancies irrespective of the age limit. Similar relief was claimed before this Tribunal by filing O.A. Nos. 97212011 & batch and orders were passed on 21.10.2013 on the same lines.
6. The Rules of recruitment were modified in the year 2012 through SRO No.43. A Notification of recruitment was also issued based on the sar-ne. One significant change under these rules is that the concept of absorption of ENAs was taken away altogether. Instead, 60oh of vacancies are required to be filled through direct recruitment, through selection of candidates, who hold national apprentice certificate in the relevant trade Preference is given to the apprentices of Dockyard. The promotion to the extent of 40o/o was retained and the altemative of direct recruitment failing promotion, was also continued. The applicants contended that a right is conf-erred upon them to be absorbed in their capacity as ENAs and the same was taken away under the impugned Rules without any basis. It is also pleaded that the amended rule is arbitrary, unreasonable and has the effect of taking away the relief that was granted by the Tribunal in the earlier adjudication.
7. As regards the subsequent amendment through SRO No.31/2017, the applicants contend that though the procedure of absorption is restored, the benefit thereof is taken away by stipulating the conditions as to the age limit.
{^\ / -x.
Page 16 of 20 o Al20 129 5 t20t 4 & o At 20 I 622t2017 2 .\ d
8. The respondents filed counter affidavit, stating inter alia that the i ) Naval Dockyard is an important organization where the persons seeking employment are required to possess proper qualifications and certificates and it is competent for the respondents to frame the Rules in this behalf. They contend that even when the Apprentice Act provided for absorption ofservice it is only a right to be considered but not a right to be absorbed straightaway and in view of the amendrnent to the Apprentice Act 2005, no apprentice can insist for being absorbed. They contend that the applicants cannot dictate terms to the respondents in the context of appointment to the posts in question.
9. Sri T. Koteswara Rao, learned counsel advanced extensive arguments on behalf of the applicants, on the lines indicated above. Srnt. K. Rajitha and Sri R.V. Mallikarjuna Rao, learned counsel advanced arguments on behalf of the respondents.
.l0. On an earlier occasion, O.A. No.295l2014 was allowed vide order dated 05.12.2014, along with certain other O.As. The respondents herein filed Writ Petition No.194212016, feeling aggrieved by the cornmon older dated 05.12.2014 in so far as it pertains to O.A. No.295l2014. The applicants on the other hand filed W.P. No.265812016 not feeling satisfied with the nature of disposal given by the Tribunal. The applicants withdrew the Writ Petition No.2658/2016 on 01.03.2017. W.P. No. l94212016 was allowed on 27 .9.2018 setting aside the common order dated 5 .12.2014 and remanding the rnatter for fresh consideration and disposal on all the issues.
.e<
Page !7 ol 20
,6 o At20 I 29 5 I 201 4 & O At 20 I 622 I 20 17
I
\
; ::-.
IL Quite a large number of ENAs were absorbed over the period as and _1
when vacancies arose. It has already been mentioned that three methods of appointment were contemplated under the Rules of 2000. Absorption of ENAs was provided to the extent of 60oh, promotion to the extent of remaining 40ok failing which, direct recruitment was provided.
12. Whenever there exists a provision for direct recruitment, it is natural that the qualifications to be possessed by the candidates and the age limits are stipulated. Obviously to ensure that suitable candidates are selected, the respondents sought to insist on the stipulations as to age for the ENAs also. 'l'hat was held to be incorrect by the Ernakulam Bench of this Tribunal and in quite good number of cases, this Bench also took the view that ENAs are entitled to be absorbed without insisting on age limit but subject their fulfilling the other conditions. O.As No. 97212011 & batch were also filed before this Tribunal and orders were passed on 21.10.2013 on the satne lines. It is important to note that by the time those OAs were disposed of, the 2012 Rules were very much in vogue. The applicants did not choose to challenge the said I{ules in these O.As. In a way, the principle of constructive res judicata comes into play. However, we do not intend to disarm the applicants on that ground.
13. It has already been mentioned that an imporlant change in these 2012 Rules, is the taking away of the concept of absorbing the ENAs. The direct recruitment was restricted to holders of cerlificate of apprenticeship and prelerence was given to the apprentices in the Naval Dockyard. Though it is strongly urged that rights are vested in the applicants to be absorbed, we find ./,\,<
-x Page 18 of 20
j) s o At20 /295 /201 4 & o A/20 / 622/2017 r.:,- :
?"
it difficult to accept the same. n e Ju dgement in Monager, VKNM Vocational rligher Secondary schoor vs srate of Kerata & ors., upon which strong reliance is placed upon by the learned counsel for the applicant, it was clearly mentioned that a vested right is always subject to a subsequent enactment, if it so provided expressly or by necessary implication.
14. A person who holds the qualification prescribed for appointment to a post, can by rnore stretch of imagination plead that the agency in which he intends to be employed, does not have a right to frame its own Rules. Here itself it needs to be noted that the provision to absorb the apprentices was made in the Rules to comply with the requirement under the Apprentices Act.
In the year 2005, the obligation ofan emproyer to absorb an apprentice has been taken away through an Act ofparliament. That appears to be the reason behind the framing of the Rules of 2012. Therefore, the appricants cannot claim as ofright that they are entitled to be absorbed on account oftheir beino ENAs.
15. whatever be the disadvantage that may have to be suffered by the applicants on account of framing the 2or2 Rules, a significant development has taken place in the year 2017 with the issuance of the SRo No.3 l/2017.
The absorption of ENAs is restored. In the counter affidavit fired in oA No.29512014, it has been clearly mentioned that the vacancies that were in existence till the framingof 2012 Rules were segregated and all of them were filled by applying the procedure prescribed in SRo r50/2000.
euite a large number of apprentices got benefit out of the same. The relevant facts and figures are furnished in the counter affidavit. Ifthe applicants did not avail t \-t < Page 19 of 20 l/;
. o A/20 1295/201 4 & O N2o / 622/2017 .1
-\. the benefit or were not successful therein, nobody can help the situation.
Added to that, the SRO No.3ll2017 has reduced the hardship. The stipulation of age limit cannot be said to have resulted in violation of the rights of the applicants.
16' An important organization like the Naval Dockyard cannot be expected to remain static and it has to progress with the needs of the day.
Howsoever important the rights of the appricant may be, they cannot be placed above the technical requirements and job requirements of the Navar Dockya.d. The variousjudgements relied upon by the appricants such as sfire of romil Nadu & ors vs K. shamsunder & ors, Food Corporation of India vs M/s Komdlrcnu cattre Feetr Indrtstries, Krtoday Distileries Ltd. & ors vs state of Kamarako & Ors, Grand Kakotiya Shraton Hotet & Towers Employees & Llorks (Jnion vs Srinivoso Resorts Lttl. & Ors, Roopchond Arttnkha & Ors vs DDA & Ors, INRE, the speciol Courts Birr 1978 speciot Ref No.I ol l97g ond Gauri shankor & ors vs UoI & Ors. are of no direct relevance to the facts of the case.
17. We do not find any merit in the O.As. They are accordingly t disrnissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
sqt&x -rTfl
CI:, i.illi i'l:.ii ISFI
*n .r i -onrast2-o(F ey bz\xrt
I""
' ' -',,r.'. )1-ll ->018
- 3*zolt
i'1' .
Page 20 of 20