Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras
D Ranjith Kumar vs Defence on 16 April, 2026
1 OA/310/00534 to 537/2025
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHENNAI BENCH
OA/310/00534, 535, 536, and 537/2025
Dated this the 16th day of April, Two Thousand Twenty Six
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. M. SWAMINATHAN, MEMBER (J)
AND
HON'BLE MR. M.L. SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER(A)
1. D. Dinesh,
S/o K. Dinakaran,
Machinist - SK,
INS Rajali, Arakkonam,
2. S. Santhosh,
S/o R. Sandilyan,
Rigger (SK)
INS Rajali, Arakkonam,
3. S. Raj,
S/o D. Simon,
Copper Smith (Skilled),
INS Rajali, Arakkonam,
4. R. Dilliraj,
S/o Ravi,
Machinist - SK,
INS Rajali, Arakkonam . .. Applicants in OA 534/2025
J. Kishore Kumar
S/o I Jacob,
Machinist - SK,
INS Rajali, Arakkonam .. Applicant in OA 535/2025
J. Rahul,
S/o Jayachandran,
Tradesman Mate,
INS Rajali, Arakkonam .. Applicant in OA 536/2025
2 OA/310/00534 to 537/2025
D. Ranjith Kumar,
S/o Devaraj,
Carpenter (Skilled)
INS Rajali, Arakkonam .. Applicant in OA.537/2025
By Advocate M/s. Paul & Paul
Vs.
1. Union of India,
Rep by the Flag Officer Commanding -
In - Chief (For CCPO)
Headquarters, Eastern Naval Command,
Naval Basis, Visakhapatnam.
2. The Commanding Officer,
INS Rajali, Naval Air Station,
Camp Post, Arakkonam. .. Respondents in all the OAs
By Advocate Mr. Su. Srinivasan, SCGSC
3 OA/310/00534 to 537/2025
ORDER
(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. M. Swaminathan, Judicial Member(J)) An identical relief is prayed for in all these applications which is found on similar facts and circumstances, these applications were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
2. The relief prayed for by the applicants is as follows:
"to direct the respondents to declare the completion of probation period of the applicant and confirm their service in the post of Machinist (Skilled)/ Rigger (SK)/ Copper Smith (SK)/MT Fitter (Skilled)/Tradesman Mate/Carpenter(skilled) in the 2nd respondent establishment and to grant any other relief deemed just and proper in the interest of justice".
3. The facts which give rise to the filing of these applications are as follows:
The applicants' families had surrendered their lands for the establishment of INS Rajali, pursuant to which they were issued Land Loser Certificates for the purpose of employment. Subsequently, the applicants received call letters informing them that their profiles had been shortlisted for the further selection process, including a written examination. The said communication also indicated that the applicants had already submitted 4 OA/310/00534 to 537/2025 their educational certificates for verification prior to the written examination. Upon verification of their certificates and being satisfied with their educational and other requisite qualifications, the applicants were appointed as Machinist (SK), Rigger (SK), Copper Smith (SK), MT Fitter (SK)Tradesman Mate and Carpenter(skilled) in the establishment of the second respondent. Thereafter, the applicants were orally informed that they were required to produce their Apprenticeship Training Certificates in accordance with the Recruitment Rules, failing which their services would be terminated. Further, one Mr. Loganathan from the Administrative Department communicated via WhatsApp that the applicants were required to return their ID Cards, DCMAF Cards, and PRAN Cards to the department by 02.06.2025. It is submitted that the services of the applicants cannot be terminated without following due process of law.
Hence, the present Original Application.
4. The main contention of the learned counsel for the applicants is that the lands belonging to the applicants' families were acquired for the Naval Air Station, and Land Loser Certificates were duly issued. At the time of acquisition, the State Government, through G.O.Ms. No. 1244 dated 13.08.1997, directed the respondents to ensure that at least one member from each displaced family is provided employment in the project, with such individuals to be identified by the District Collector. Further, certain 5 OA/310/00534 to 537/2025 Writ Petitions were disposed of by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras by order dated 14.03.1997, wherein directions were issued to the respondents, including a direction not to recruit persons for Class III/IV or other lower posts from external sources until one member from each displaced family had been provided employment. The said order was subsequently challenged in W.A. Nos. 326 and 327 of 1998, and the Hon'ble Division Bench, by order dated 31.08.2007, clarified and modified the earlier directions. The relevant portion is extracted below:
"5. ....................So far as the age limit is concerned, the question of relaxation will come if only one or other person is over age. That question has to be determined by the competent authority. Taking into consideration the age of person, that means if a person is much over age, i.e., more than 50 years, in such case, the age may not be relaxed. As the prescription of qualification of appointment against one or other post is mandatory, we are of the view that no relaxation can be made in this regard. If a person is not qualified they can be engaged for other menial work such as skilled or unskilled labourers".
5. It is further submitted that the applicants have rendered more than three years of service. The only issue raised regarding their appointment is the non-completion of Apprenticeship Training, which is intended to provide trade experience. However, the applicants have since acquired over three years of practical experience in their respective trades. Their performance has been duly appreciated by the second respondent, who has 6 OA/310/00534 to 537/2025 also recommended their continuation in service.
6. In this regard, the second respondent, through communication dated 08.09.2023 addressed to the Headquarters, Eastern Naval Command, recommended relaxation and retention of the applicants. The said communication reflects that the second respondent proposed either (i) continuation of the applicants in their current trades/designations as a special case, or (ii) absorption against the existing 39 direct recruitment vacancies. The recommendation further records:
"4. It is pertinent to mention that all the above- mentioned candidates and land looser and had submitted their certificates/experience etc for scrutiny of the board during the course of the recruitment for consideration. The candidates were thereby appointed on 05.09.2022. During the probation period the mentioned employees were tasked by their departments as per their trade/nature of duty and no adverse remarks or observations were received by the CE section of this unit till date. Few of the individuals have also undergone training at NAY (K), Kochi and the acquired knowledge from these courses is benefitting the departments in day- to-day essential work. The performance of the employees has also been satisfactory during the period as brought by the departments in the annual performance report..."
7. In these circumstances, it is contended that insisting upon the Apprenticeship Training requirement at this stage is unwarranted, as the 7 OA/310/00534 to 537/2025 applicants have already acquired the necessary experience and demonstrated their competence. The second respondent has also acknowledged that the applicants hail from rural backgrounds, many being sole breadwinners, with some supporting family members suffering from serious medical conditions. Therefore, terminating their services on the ground of non-production of Apprenticeship Training Certificates, despite their proven experience and satisfactory performance would be arbitrary, disproportionate, and contrary to principles of fairness and natural justice.
8. Alternatively, it is submitted that the applicants may be accommodated in suitable posts commensurate with their educational qualifications. There are sufficient vacancies within the respondent organization, and the applicants may be absorbed accordingly. The spirit of the Hon'ble Division Bench's order is to ensure employment for at least one member of each land-loser family, and it also provides that individuals lacking requisite qualifications may be accommodated in skilled or unskilled positions. In view of the above, it is prayed that this Tribunal may issue appropriate directions.
8 OA/310/00534 to 537/2025
9. In contrast, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that where an appointment is made on a provisional basis, subject to verification of eligibility, the appointee does not acquire any vested right to continue in service if it is subsequently found that the essential qualifications are not fulfilled. He further submitted that, in the present case, the applicable Recruitment Rules (SRO 43/2012, as amended by SRO 31/2017) mandate successful completion of apprenticeship training in the relevant trade as an essential qualification. It is an admitted fact that the applicants did not possess this qualification at the time of their appointment. Therefore, their appointments were purely provisional and subject to verification of eligibility.
10. Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.M. Latha vs. State of Kerala [(2003) 3 SCC 541], wherein it was held that when specific qualifications are prescribed under the rules, candidates possessing higher qualifications but lacking the prescribed qualification cannot claim eligibility. The Court emphasized that eligibility must be strictly determined in accordance with the prescribed rules. Further reliance was placed on Zahoor Ahmad Rather vs. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad [(2019) 2 SCC 404], wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that when a particular qualification is prescribed, the appointing authority cannot treat 9 OA/310/00534 to 537/2025 higher qualifications as equivalent unless such equivalence is expressly provided under the rules.
11. The learned counsel further contended that, in view of the settled legal position laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, any appointment made in violation of the Recruitment Rules is void ab initio and confers no enforceable right to continue in service. The mere possession of higher qualifications cannot compensate for the absence of a mandatory prescribed qualification. A provisional appointment, being subject to verification, does not create any vested right in favour of the appointee. It was also submitted that the termination of such ineligible appointees is legally valid, and Courts or Tribunals ought not to interfere with such administrative action. Furthermore, Courts cannot issue a writ of mandamus directing authorities either to refrain from enforcing the law or to act in contravention of statutory rules. Accordingly, it was contended that the termination of the applicants for want of the prescribed qualifications is lawful and in strict conformity with the governing Recruitment Rules. On these grounds, the learned counsel prayed for dismissal of all the Original Applications.
10 OA/310/00534 to 537/2025
12. We have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel on both the sides , perused the pleadings and the materials available on record. The case laws referred to by the respective parties were also gone into by us.
13. The issue that arises for consideration before this Tribunal is whether the applicants, who fall short of certain prescribed qualifications, can nonetheless be accommodated in skilled or unskilled posts. Further, whether, in view of the Recruitment Board having considered their qualifications and recommended their appointment with the understanding that such qualifications could be relaxed, the applicants are entitled to be accommodated in suitable posts commensurate with their educational qualifications.
14. We would like to extract the basic qualification for the recruitment to the said posts which is governed by SRO 43/2012 dated 18.05.2012 as amended by SRO 31/2017 dated 24.04.2017, which prescribes the following essential qualifications: (i) Matriculation or equivalent with knowledge of English; and (ii) Successful completion of apprenticeship training in the relevant trade; OR two years of regular service in the appropriate technical branch of the Armed Forces as a mechanic or equivalent.
11 OA/310/00534 to 537/2025
15. We also deem it appropriate to extract the qualifications and present postings of the applicants as under:
S. Name & Qualification Present Post Remarks No. D. Dhinesh (10th + ITI Fitter) (OA No. Machinist Not possessing 1 534/2025) (SK) apprenticeship certificate S. Santhosh (10th + Diploma in Not possessing 2 Electronics and Communication Rigger (SK) apprenticeship certificate Engineering) (OA No. 534/2025) Copper S. Raj (10th Standard) (OA No. Not possessing 3 Smith 534/2025) apprenticeship certificate (Skilled) S. Dinesh Babu (10th + ITI Fitter) (OA MT Fitter Not possessing 4 No. 534/2025) (SK) apprenticeship certificate R. Dilliraj (10th + Diploma in Machinist Not possessing 5 Mechanical Engineering) (OA No. (SK) apprenticeship certificate 534/2025) J. Kishore Kumar (10th + ITI Fitter + Diploma in Mechanical Engineering + Machinist Possessing 6 Apprenticeship Training in Mechanical (Skilled) apprenticeship certificate Engineering) (OA No. 535/2025) Not possessing J. Rahul (10th + Diploma in Electrical Tradesman apprenticeship 7 and Electronics Engineering) (OA No. Mate certificate, but has 536/2025) higher qualification D. Ranjith Kumar (9th Standard + ITI -
Carpenter Not possessing sufficient
8 Three-Year Course in Carpentry and
(Skilled) qualification
Cabinet Making) (OA No. 537/2025)
16. From the above, it is evident that none of the applicants in OA No. 534 of 2025 possessed the mandatory apprenticeship training in the relevant trade at the time of their appointment. It is further observed that any relaxation of qualifications can be granted only by the Central Government in consultation with the UPSC, and no such relaxation has been granted in the present case. Accordingly, we direct the respondents to 12 OA/310/00534 to 537/2025 consider the applicants in OA No. 534 of 2025 for appointment to appropriate posts commensurate with their existing qualifications, without terminating their services.
17, With regard to the applicant in OA No. 535 of 2025, it is noted that he possesses matriculation, ITI qualification in the Fitter trade, and has also successfully completed apprenticeship training in Mechanical Engineering. He has been appointed as Machinist (Skilled), and in terms of the Recruitment Rules, he satisfies the prescribed qualification. Therefore, we direct the respondents to retain the said applicant in his present post.
18. In respect of the applicant in OA No. 536 of 2025, it is an admitted position that he does not possess the mandatory apprenticeship training in the relevant trade at the time of appointment. As stated earlier, relaxation of qualifications can only be granted by the Central Government in consultation with the UPSC, and no such relaxation has been accorded. Hence, we direct the respondents to consider the said applicant for appointment to a suitable post in accordance with his qualifications, without terminating his service.
13 OA/310/00534 to 537/2025
19. Similarly, in the case of the applicant in OA No. 537 of 2025, it is an admitted fact that he does not possess the mandatory apprenticeship training in the relevant trade at the time of appointment. In the absence of any relaxation granted by the competent authority, we direct the respondents to consider the applicant for appointment to an appropriate post suited to his qualifications, without terminating his service.
20. With the observations made above, we dispose of these Original Applications on the terms indicated above.
(M.L. SRIVASTAVA) (M.SWAMINATHAN)
MEMBER(A) MEMBER(J)
16 .04.2026
mas
Digitally signed
MA by M A SUNDAR
Date:
SUNDAR 2026.04.24
12:07:30 +05'30'