Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Rakesh Kumar vs M/O Railways on 18 December, 2024
1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH
O.A.No.060/1156/2017
Chandigarh, Order Reserved: 04.10.2024
Order Pronounced: 18.12.2024
HON'BLE SHRI RAMESH SINGH THAKUR, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MRS. ANJALI BHAWRA, MEMBER (A)
Rakesh Kumar, s/o Sh. Jagdish Kumar, r/o House No.
3124/1, Street No. 7, Jawahar Nagar, Ludhiana - 141001.
...Applicant
(Advocate: Sh. Rohit Seth)
VERSUS
1. General Manager (P), Northern Railway, Headquarters
Office, Baroda House, New Delhi.
2. Chief Workshop Manager, Northern Railway, Mechanical
Workshop, Amritsar.
...Respondent(s)
(Advocate: Ms. Komal Preet Chauhan)
ORDER
Per: RAMESH SINGH THAKUR, MEMBER (J):
1. This Original Application has been preferred against order dated 22.09.2016 (Annexure A-1) whereby claim of the applicant for appointment as substitutes in Group 'D' being a Diploma Holder under Apprentice Act, 1961 from Mechanical Workshop, Northern Railways, Amritsar had not giving age 2 relaxation for the period of apprenticeship, and further against order dated 19.04.2017 (Annexure A-16), whereby respondents state that candidature of the applicant was not rejected being over age but because of availability of a panel there remained no exigency Apprentice and such decision was taken on 11.09.2014 by the GM (P). The applicant has sought for the following relief:been rejected on the ground of being over age 03 months and 03 days while i. Quash Order dated 22.09.2016 (Annexure A-1) vide which the claim of applicant for appointment as substitutes in Group 'D' being a Diploma Holder under Apprentice Act, 1961 from Mechanical Workshop, Northern Railways, Amritsar had been rejected on ground of being over age 3 months and 03 days while not giving age relaxation for the period of apprenticeship.
ii. Direct the respondents to offer appointment to the applicant on regular post as substitutes in Group 'D' being a Diploma Holder under Apprentice Act, 1961 being eligible from the date the similarly placed candidates were appointed as such pursuant to the same selection process, while declaring the action of the respondents in rejecting the case of the applicant on ground of age bar as void ab initio, with all consequential benefits.
iii. Any other order or direction deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
3iv. Costs of the OA be allowed in favour of the applicant.
2. Averments made by the applicant are as follows. The applicant was born on 28.09.1973, and completed 3 years Diploma in Mechanical Engineering in February 1997. Thereafter, the applicant received training as Apprentice from Northern Railway, Mechanical Workshop, Amritsar from 25.10.1997 to 24.10.1998 under Registration No. PB/78/8609/97. The applicant belongs to Scheduled Caste category.
3. Vide letter dated 30.03.2012 written to the CWM, N. Railway. Amritsar by the GM (P), Northern Railway, for engagement of diploma/degree holder trained under Apprentice Act, 1961 as substitute in Group 'D' posts within General Managers power in administrative exigencies subject to fulfilment of extent instructions prescribed for engagement, direction was given to scrutinize all Diploma holders trained there with cut-off date as 01.01.2012 and list of Apprentices was to be forwarded for consideration. Thereafter, the office CWE, Northern Railway Mechanical Workshop Amritsar called for submission of documents relating to academic and professional certificates from 21 trained Apprentices including applicant vide letter dated 02.08.2012 (Annexure A-2).
4. Vide another letter dated 02.08.2012 (Annexure A-3) applicant was called upon to apply for Group 'D' category by 4 11.08.2012 if he is willing. A general notice dated 03.08.2012 in this regard was also circulated / put on notice boards. The applicant sought for Certificate of Proficiency from the concerned officer of the respondent department vide letter dated 09.08.2012 (Annexure A-4) and the same was issued on 17.08.2012 (Annexure A-5). Some other Apprentice approached this Tribunal to seek directions for the aforesaid purpose to enable them to apply and the directions were given and complied to issue the proficiency certificate. It is submitted by the applicant that he did the needful formalities to apply and as an abundant caution the applicant vide representation dated 08.11.2012 (Annexure A-6) also sought age relaxation of one year for the period of Apprentice course in addition to normal relaxation being granted to the reserve category.
5. Vide letter dated 24.11.2012 (Annexure A-7) the Sr. Personnel Officer/ASRW forwarded with approval of candidates after the scrutiny of documents of 17 out of 21 Apprentice candidates by Committee comprising of AWM (C) /ASRW, APO/ASRW and ADSTE/ASR on direction of the competent authority i.e CWM/ASRW, and thereafter, another letter dated 07.01.2013 (Annexure A-8) was written by office of GM(P) to Chief Workshop Manager to screen applicant who has undergone one year apprenticeship training in workshop 5 from 01.01.2012 as cut-off date for determining age eligibility.
6. Vide order dated 08.02.2013 (Annexure A-9) the GM (P) approved appointment, against substitutes in Group 'D' posts, of 16 Apprentices excluding the applicant. On protest to the authorities, the Applicant was called upon by Assistant Personnel Officer, Northern Railway, Mechanical Workshop, Amritsar vide letter dated 11.04.2013 (Annexure A-10) to attend the office on 16.04.2013 along with all original Professional as well as date of birth certificates. It is submitted by the applicant that name of the applicant was approved for appointment against substitute in Group 'D' posts like his fellow batch mates or juniors who included many who were younger to him in age vide letter dated 17.04.2013 (Annexure A-11).
7. The Minister of State for Social Justice and Empowerment, GOI wrote to the GM(P) on 02.12.2015 (Annexure A-12) about pending appointment of applicant despite selection whereas all other 17 candidates were offered appointment, a request was made to look into the matter. Thereafter, vide Order dated 22.09.2016 (Annexure A-1) the CWM while referring to GM(P) letter dated 23.08.2016 conveyed the GM(P) that the reason of rejection of candidature of applicant was that he was over age for appointment as substitute for Group 'D' on cut-off date. 6
8. The applicant approached National Commission of Schedule Castes and notice was issued to GM(P) on 03.10.2016 for filing report within 7 days. On 03.11.2016 (Annexure A-13) a reply was filed reiterating the applicant to be over age on cut-off date. Vide letter dated 06.03.2017 (Annexure A-14) the National Commission for SC forwarded the copy of record / note of discussion held on 02.03.2017 in which direction was given to consider the case of applicant for absorption in Group 'D' to the GM(P) and compliance report was sought to be submitted within 30 days. The Commission in the light of Railway Board Order RBE No.57/2006 dated 04.05.2006 and law settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as Hon'ble Madras High Court recommended that Railways should consider to give age relaxation to applicant for the period for which Apprentice had to undergo training for his consideration for absorption in Group 'D' Category. Vide letter dated 30.03.2017 (Annexure A-15) the CWM wrote to the GM(P) to personally look into the matter of appointment of applicant keeping in view the time frame fixed by the Commission.
9. Vide communication dated 19.04.2017 (Annexure A-
16) the GM(P) railway reverted back to the SC Commission stating that Apprentices can only be considered in exigency of services by GM(P) but since 11,178 candidates from open market were made available, there was no exigency to 7 engage applicant and that it is not true that applicant was not engaged due to being over age. All other workshops were conveyed this vide letter dated 11.09.2014. It is the contention of the applicant that a complete 'U' turn has been taken as to eligibility of applicant whereas in the impugned order the rejection of his candidature for appointment as substitute in Group 'D' on ground of being over age only.
10. In reply to this Original Application, the respondents have raised the objection that challenge to impugned order dated 22.09.2016 (Annexure A-1) rejecting the claim of the applicant for appointment as substitute in Group-'D' being a Diploma holder under Apprentice Act, 1961 is misconceived in as much as the applicant does not fulfil the eligibility contained in notice dated 02.08.2012 (Annexure A-2) as he has crossed the upper age limit of 38 years as on 01.01.2012 and was not in possession of Certificate of Proficiency as on 01.01.2012 which is a condition precedent.
11. It has been submitted by the respondents that the notice dated 02.08.2012 issued by Respondent No. 3 is in furtherance to the decision taken by Respondent No. 2 on 30.03.2012 for engaging the Diploma/Degree holders trained under the Apprentice Act, 1961 as substitute in Group-'D' post from amongst the Diploma/Degree holder who have completed apprenticeship under Apprentice Act, 1961 in Amritsar workshop eligible as on 01.01.2012. It is the 8 contention of the respondents that the decision dated 30.03.2012 and notice dated 02.08.2012 prescribing the cutoff date for eligibility as on 01.01.2012 are not under challenge, nor the notice prescribe grant of any age relaxation and any departure to the notice dated 02.08.2012 prescribing the eligibility would violate Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India.
12. It has been further submitted by the respondents that substitutes in the Railways could be engaged in Group-'D' category, and recruitment of Group-'D' Class IV category is governed under Para 179 of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual, Vol. I. It has been contested by the respondents that there is no provision for relaxation of age in the statutory provision qua recruitment of Group-D employees, except 5 years in the case of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates, and the relaxation of 5 years to the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe category is admissible only to the extent of their total service rendered by them either as a casual or temporary capacity. It is the contention of the respondents that the applicant was 38 years 3 months and 3 days as on 01.01.2012, i.e. the cut-off date for determining eligibility, and therefore could not be considered. It has been further contended by the respondents that the selection notice dated 02.08.2012 specifically prescribed cut-off date for eligibility as on 01.01.2012 for considering 9 Diploma/Degree holders, and under Section 21 of the Apprentice Act, 1961, one has to acquire the certificate of proficiency from the Board of Apprenticeship Training. It is submitted by the respondents that thought the applicant had undergone apprenticeship training under the Apprentice Act, 1961 at Northern Railway, Mechanical Workshop, Amritsar from 25.10.1997 to 24.10.1998, but the certificate of proficiency has been issued by the Regional Board of Apprenticeship training on 17.08.2012 i.e. after the cut-off date of eligibility i.e. 01.01.2012, and as such the applicant did not fulfil the requisite eligibility criteria at the cut-off date.
13. We have heard ld. counsel for both sides. From the pleadings it is admitted fact that the applicant has completed three year diploma in Mechanical Engineering in February 1997. Thereafter the applicant received training as Apprentice with effect from 25.10.1997 to 24.10.1998. Vide letter dated 30.03.2012, the same was issued by the Northern Railway for engagement of diploma/degree holder trained under Apprentice Act, 1961 as substitute in Group 'D' posts within General Managers power in administrative exigencies. The cut-off date was 01.01.2012. 21 trained apprentices including the applicant submitted documents relating to academic and professional certificates. General notice was issued on 03.08.2012 (Annexure A-4) circulated/put on notice boards. The applicant vide representation dated 08.11.2012 10 (Annexure A-6) has sought age relaxation of one year for the period of apprentice course in additional to normal relaxation. The scrutiny of documents were done by the respondents and out of 21 17 were put before competent authority vide letter dated 24.11.2012. The Chief Workshop Manager had screened the applicant who underwent one year apprenticeship training in workshop from 01.01.2012. Vide order dated 08.02.2013 (Annexure A-9), the GM (P) approved appointment against substitutes in Group 'D' Posts, of 16 apprentices and the name of applicant was excluded.
14. The main contention of the applicant is that his fellow batch mates or juniors younger to the applicant were included and the applicant has been excluded wrongly. The 17 candidates were offered appointment and vide Annexure A-1 dated 22.09.2016 the candidature of the applicant was rejected as the applicant was over-age for appointment as substitute for Group 'D' on cut-off date.
15. The respondents filed reply wherein specific stand of the respondents is that the applicant does not fulfil the eligibility contained in notice dated 02.08.2012 (Annexure A-
2) as he has crossed the upper age limit of 38 years as on 01.01.2012 and was not in possession of certificate of proficiency which is a condition prescribed. It is the contention of the respondents that notice was issued on 02.08.2012 by respondent No.3 in furtherance to the decision 11 taken by respondent No.2 on 30.03.2012 wherein it has been specifically indicated that the diploma/degree holders who have completed apprenticeship training under Apprentice Act 1961 should be eligible as on 01.01.2012.
16. The respondents have relied upon Para 179 of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual, Vol. I wherein it has been submitted by the respondents that there is no provision for relaxation of age in the statutory provision qua recruitment of Group 'D' employees, except 5 years in case of SC and ST candidates and relaxation of 5 years to SC and ST categories is admissible only to the extent of their total service rendered by them either as Casual or Temporary capacity.
17. It has been specifically contended by the respondents that the applicant was 38 years, 3 months and 3 days as on 01.01.2012 and therefore could not be considered as the specific date for eligibility is 01.01.2012 for considering diploma/degree holders. Further the certificate of proficiency was issued by the Regional Board of Apprenticeship training on 17.08.2012, i.e., after the cut off date of eligibility, i.e., 01.01.2012.
18. Hence, from the facts itself as the applicant got diploma in February 1997 and the applicant has received the training as apprentice from Northern Railway Mechanical Workshop from 25.10.1997 to 24.10.1998. It is true that the 12 notice was issued by the respondents for the recruitment as substitute in Group 'D' posts in Administrative Exigencies subject to fulfilment of extant instructions prescribed for engagement. For the specific reply of the respondents, it is clear that the cut of date was 01.01.2012. Despite the 5 year of relaxation, the applicant is not eligible as the applicant was 38 years, 3 months and 3 days as on 01.01.2012. Further as per contention raised by the applicant that in Group 'D' category recruitment of Group 'D' class 4 category is governed under Para 179 and there is no provision for relaxation of age in the statutory provision qua the recruitment of Group D employees, except 5 years in the case of SC and ST candidates.
19. In view of the discussion hereinabove, this Tribunal is of the view that there is no merit in the O.A and there is no reason to interfere with the order passed by the competent authority. Resultantly, the O.A is dismissed. No order as to costs.
(ANJALI BHAWRA) (RAMESH SINGH THAKUR)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
s*