Central Administrative Tribunal - Kolkata
Pampa Mahata vs S E Railway on 19 July, 2023
4 og LZE5/ 2018 CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL OA 850/01225/2018 (With W.A./350/970/2018) Coram: Hor'hle Mr. dayesh V. Bhairavia, dadicial Member Hoo'ble My. Suchitte Kumar Das, Admimatrative Member fn the matter of: word I. Paripa Mahata, D/o Sujit Mahata, VAL + Post- Chandabtla, PS. Kotwali, RO- Midnapur, Pine 22107, 3. fiamari fana, D/o Durgapacda Jana, Vill- Bhuniabara, POQ- Baraghuni, PS- Chandipur, Dist. Purba Medinipar, Pine 721056, 4, Samanati Shaw, D/o Sahl Kumar Shaw, VilePost- Sasra. PS- Copibaitaypuy, Dist- Pasehim Medintpur, Pine 721508. ' in Sumana Phas, [ifn fe Das, Vill-Dighasimur, Pd- Chakdwipa, PS. Bhabanipur, Dist: Parba Mecdinipur, Pin- &. Bives Menedal, Sfo Nimal Chandra Mondal, of Macdhabnur, PQ- Salbedia, PS- Gs *} st. Banboora, Pin- 7. Pradio Kajwar, S/o Sukbendu Rapwar, Vill Surulia, PO- V. Naear, PS. Pareiia, Dist- Purulia, 72S 347, + Rivgeeea es IC » Post. Qnarsia Nagar, PS- o, Malay Samanta, S/o Chand} Charan Samanta, Vul- Garhkilla, PO- Harasankar, PA- Paniluk, Dist- Purba Mediniuy, Mine F2LiSh. $93 brakes gyer Dbbtes tears Hh fvotirmey Fattanaygak 2 TERS OPS say beg be weirs Speed Bal eced i ste we Tey "789 : PS. Tamiuk, Dist. Purhia Merciniour, Pine 92s Ny a | \ ed Leven n APPHECanes 2 oa 1225/2018 VS. 1) The Union of India, through the General Manager, South Eastern Railway, Garden Reach, Kolkata-43. 2) The Chief Personnel Officer, South Eastern Railway, Garden Reach, Kolkata-43, West Bengal. 3) Chief Works Manager, S. E. Railway, Kharagpur Workshops, Kharagpur, Dist.- Paschim Medinipur, Pin- 721301, West Bengal. 4) Workshop Personnel Officer, S. E. Railway, Kharagpur Workshops, Kharagpur, Dist.- Paschim Medinipur, Pin- 721301, West Bengal. oe Respondents For The Applicant(s): Mr. M. S. S. Rao, Counsel For The Respondent(s): Mr. D. Chowdhury, Counsel ORDER
Per: Hon'ble Suchitto Kumar Das, Administrative Member The applicants have approached this Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 praying for the following relief:
"i) An order to quash and set aside the speaking order dt. 25.07.18 of Principal Chief Personnel Officer, S. E. Railway.
ii) An order directing the respondent no. 1 to absorb the applicants in any Group "D" category Substitutes on South Eastern Railway in terms of Railway Board's Estt. Serial No. 171/2010 and 113/2012 respectively.
iii) An order directing the respondent no. 2 to keep aside 11 posts from available vacancies advertised vide Employment Notice no.
2/2018 for filling up of Gr "D" for the applicants.
iv) Any other relief which Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may be given in favour of the applicants.
3 oa 1225/2018v) Leave may be granted to file this original application jointly under Rule 4(5)(a) of CAT Procedure Rules, 1987."
2. For the sake of clarity, facts in the case are delineated and discussed hereinunder:
2.1 The applicant along with ten other candidates have undergone Technical Apprentice Training for a period of one year from 04.12.2012 to 03.12.2013 at Basic Training Centre/S. E. Railway, Kharagpur Workshop. After completion of successful training, the Director & Regional Apprenticeship Advisor, Board of Technical Training, Eastern Region, Kolkata issued proficiency certificates in their favour.
2.2 The applicants, vide their representation dated 02.04.2014, addressed to the General Manager/ S. E. Railway, Kolkata inter-alia prayed to provide them employment in any Gr. 'D' post with similar benefits as provided to earlier batches trained under Technical Apprenticeship training at Kharagpur Workshop. The applicants again represented on 02.12.2016 to the Chief Personnel Officer, S. EE. Railway, Kolkata to consider their appointment/absorption in Gr. 'D' category as the same absorption were provided to earlier batches upto 2010.
2.3. The applicants based their claim on Railway Board's circular no.
171/2010 dated 02.12.2010 wherein it was inter-alia stated that Diploma/Degree holders trained under the Apprentice Act 1961, in Railway Establishment can also be considered, (similar to ITI, etc trained Act Apprentices engaged as substitutes) for engagement under General Manager's powers as substitute in Group 'D' posts in administrative exigencies, subject to their fulfillment of the extant instructions prescribed for such engagement.
A 4 oa 1225/2018 2.4 As per the applicants, only Technician Apprentices trained at Basic Training Centre/Kharagpur were left out for absorption in comparison to other act apprentices who were trained at Kharagpur Workshops who were fully absorbed. Hence, an OA bearing no. 350/469/2018 was filed seeking absorption of Technician Apprentice in Gr. 'D' category in South Eastern Railway. This Tribunal, vide its judgment dated 21.05.2018, directed the respondent no. 2 to consider and dispose of the representation dated 02.12.2016 within four months. The respondent no. 2, i.e., Principal Chief Personnel Officer, S. E. Railway vide her orders dated 25.07.2018 stated that ?)simply completing GOI training does not guarantee appointment in the Railways and further added that there is no administrative exigency for engagement of substitutes. Aggrieved by this order, the applicants have filed this OA.
3. Learned Counsel for the applicants submits that Railway Board vide RBE no. 171/2010 has specifically provided for consideration of Technician Apprentices for appointment as Substitute Gr. 'D' under GM's powers in the Railways. The applicants were Diploma holders in Mechanical and Electrical Engineering who had completed one year of Apprenticeship in BTC/Kharagpur in South Eastern Railway and were eligible for appointment as Substitute Gr. 'D' under GM's powers as per the provision of the said RBE circular.
3.1 Learned Counsel for the applicants further submits that Course Completed Act Apprentices (CCAA) were given appointment in Gr. 'D' in South Eastern Railway upto 2014.
5 oa 1225/20183.2 Learned Counsel for the applicants submits that a number of Technician Apprentices trained in Kharagpur Workshop were absorbed in South Eastern Railway and only the Technician Apprentices who were trained in BTC/Kharagpur were not given employment. This is a clear case of discrimination and against the principles of natural justice.
3.3 Learned Counsel for the applicants cites the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of CAT at Chandigarh in OA no. 060/415/2018 (Mamta Saini & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.), in support of his argument.
° >»? 4. The respondents, in their reply, submit that RBE no. 171/2010 and 113/2012 merely made the Technician Apprentices eligible for appointment as Substitute Gr. 'D' under GM's powers. It, in no way, conferred any right on the Apprentices to claim appointment under the respondents. The RBE no. 171/2010 states that such apprentices can be considered for appointment under GM's powers as Substitute Gr. 'D' to meet administrative exigencies. It is implied that their appointment would be considered in case a requirement of new employees arose. Thus an element of discretion. on the part of authorities was implicit in RBE no. 171/2010 and 113/2012. Such administrative exigencies.did not exist or did not arise to warrant the consideration of the , applicants for appointment as Substitute Gr. 'D 4.1 Respondents submit that presently recruitment in Gr. 'D' in the Railways is done by the Railway Recruitment Cell and engagement under GM's powers as Substitute Gr. 'D' is no longer in vogue. Railway have provided for 20% reservation for Course Completed Act Apprentices (CCAA) in recruitment in Gr. 'D' posts vide their letter dated 21.06.2016.
6 oa 1225/20184.2 Railway authorities have also discontinued the practice of absorbing Act Apprentices by withdrawing letter no. E (MPP)/2002/12/261 Vol. II dated 21.06.2004 ( RBE No. 136/2004) vide RBE no. 34/2017 dated 12.04.2017. As letter dated 21.06.2004 was the basis for RBE no. 171/2010 and 113/2012, these two RBE circulars on which the claim of the applicants is based, are automatically withdrawn. The respondents, therefore, submit that the question of offering appointment to the applicants and Substitute Gr. 'D' does not arise in the present circumstances.
5. Applicants, in their rejoinder, make the point that the rights of the 7 applicants to employment as Substitute Gr. 'D' arose when they completed their course and was recognized by RBE no. 171/2010 and 113/2012. Subsequent withdrawal of these circulars does not extinguish their right. The applicants have been making representation to the authorities since 2014 demanding employment. The applicants are In no way responsible for the delay in considering their case and to posit at this late stage that they cannot be offered appointment under the new policy is denial of natural justice to the applicants.
6. Heard both sides at length. Perused materials on record.
6.1 The applicants have based their case on the provisions of RBE no. 171/2010 and 113/2012. It is noted that the applicants are Diploma engineers who are called Technician Apprentices or GOI Apprentices. These Apprentices are distinct from Trade Apprentices who are called Course Completed Act Apprentices or CCAAs. Railway had a specific policy delineated in their letter no. 21.06.2004 to consider the CCAAs for absorption under GM's \
--\eroes as Substitute Gr. 'D'.
oa 1225/20186.2. In 2010, vide RBE no. 171/2010, this consideration was extended to the GOI Apprentices too. RBE 113/2012 gives the modalities for considering such candidates for appointment as per the provisions of RBE no. 171/2010. For the sake of clarity, RBE no. 171/2010 is quoted below in full :-
: Government of India (Bharat Sarkar) ° i. Ministry of Railways (Rail Mantralaya) he (Railway Board) RBE No. (41/2010 No. E(MPP)2005/6/1 New Deihi, dated 02.12.2010 The Gencral Managers, All fodian Railways including Production Units Sub: - Engagement of Course Completed Act Apprentices as substitutes in Group 'O' on Indian Railways Board vide its letter No. E(MPP)2002/12/2G/Vo.11 dated 21.06.2004 had clarified that Course Competed Act Apprentices can be engaged as Substitutes Ine Group 'D' under Generat Managers' powers in administrative exlIgencles:-- .
re is further clarified that Giploma/Degree holders trained under the | Apprentices Act 1961 (as amended from time to time) in Railway establishments can also be considered, (simitar to ITI, etc trained Act Apprentices engaged as substitutes) for engagement as substitutes in Group ''D' posts within the General Managers' powers In administrative exigencies, subject to their fulfilmgntsof the extant instructlons prescribed for such engagement. A: ( TO ypreratee (Anil Wasson) 4 i fre Dy. Director EC(MPP) Railhvay Baard No. E(MPP)2005/G6/ 1 New Becthi, cated 02.12.2010 Copy to:
i. re General Secretary, AIRF, 4, State Entry Road, New Delhi, with 35 spares. 3 rre) general Secretary, NFIR, 3 Chelmsford Road, New Delhi, with 35 spares.
. The Secretory General FROA, Room No.256-A Rail Bhavan New Octhi with 5 soarcs.
cpare, Secretary Goneral, IRPOF, Room No,268 Rall Bhavan New Delhi with 5 % Ae erctary R6BSS Group 'A' Officers Association, Room No,462, Rall Bhavan. aa embers, Oepartmental Council and Secretary Staff side National Council 13- s Ferozeshah Road, New Delhi with 90 spares
- The General Secretary, AIRPF Association, Raom No,256 Rall Bhavan f New Delhi with S speres.
: aN ENA ene For Secretary/Ratiway Boars.
The applicants being Diploma holder Apprentices, have claimed that in spite of the provisions contained in the abovequoted circular, they were not considered for appointment as Substitutes Gr. 'D' under GM's powers in spite of repeated representations made by them to the authorities.
6.3. On going through the circular quoted above, we are in agreement with the respondents' stand that RBE no. 171/2010 is merely an enabling provision for the Diploma holder apprentices to be considered for. appointment as Gr. 'D' Substitutes. It, in no way, makes any commitment regarding absorption of the apprentices. In fact the circular clearly states that 8 oa 1225/2018 the Diploma holder Apprentices can be considered for appointment in administrative exigencies. It is the case of the respondents that there was no administrative exigency which would warrant consideration of the applicants for appointment. We are of the considered view that existence of administrative exigency is to be determined by the authorities. In the instant case, the authorities did not feel that any exigency existed which required the candidature of Diploma holder apprentices to be considered for engagement as Substitute under GM's powers. Therefore, the candidature of the applicants was not considered by the respondents.
6.4 We find no merit in the applicants' claim that their right to employment accrued on the basis of RBE no. 171/2010 and RBE no. 113/2012. We also fail to appreciate the applicants' argument with regard to discrimination vis-a-vis other Apprentices. As noted above, the applicants would have been considered for appointment provided there was an administrative exigency. Since no such exigency existed or occurred, they were not considered for appointment at the relevant time.
6.5 We have gone through the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of CAT at Chandigarh in OA no. 060/415/2018 (Mamta Saini & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.} cited by the Learned Counsel for the applicants. This judgment directs the respondents to offer employment to the applicants who had qualified in the screening test but were not given appointment, whereas some other Diploma holder Apprentices who had failed in the screening were given appointment based on the Court's order. The circumstances in OA no. 060/415/2018 (Mamta Saini & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.) are thus ompletely distinguishable from those in the present OA. Hence, the judgment cited by the Learned Counsel for the applicants is not applicable in the instant e Se eet a, er 9 | 0a 1225/2018 case.
6.6 Wealso take note of the various other judgments cited by the applicants in their rejoinder to the reply filed by the respondents. None of these judgments, in our considered opinion, have a bearing on the issue under adjudication in the instant OA.
6.7. In the light of the above discussion, we find no merit in the applicants' claim to be appointed as Substitute Gr. 'D' in the respondent organization.
7. OAis thus determined to be devoid of merit and is dismissed.
MA, if any, is also disposed of. No costs.
we uci Kamar Das) (Jayesh V."Bhairavia) Admiristrative Member Judicial Member sl