Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(Order of the Court was made by Elipe Dharma Rao, J.) These writ petitions have been filed seeking to issue Writs of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the Tribunal's common order dated 31.8.2007 made in O.A.Nos.235 to 238 and 240 of 2007 and quash the same.

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:-

The applicants before the Tribunal belong to Scheduled Caste community, excepting the applicant in O.A.No.236 of 2007, who belongs to OBC Community. These applicants were selected for Course Completed Act Apprentice on merits. While so, there was an advertisement inviting applications from eligible candidates with 8th Std. pass for the Act Apprentice Course, published in the Notice Board of Railway Workshop, pursuant to which, the applicants had applied for the said course and subsequently, after passing the relevant tests, they were selected for the said course and had undergone the training during various periods between 1984 and 1988. It is the specific case of the applicants that upto 18.8.1999, there were appointments from the list of Certificate holders of Course Completed Act Apprentices on the basis of their seniority and all of a sudden, a ban was imposed on recruitment by the Railway Board, by order dated 19.8.1999, which was lifted subsequently by order dated 24.8.2004. Thereafter, the petitioner herein, viz., the Chief Personnel Officer, Southern Railway, Chennai, invited applications by order dated 29.11.2004 from the eligible Course Completed Act Apprentices for appointment to the post of Substitute Helper Grade II, stating that the said post was temporary in nature i.e. for a period of four months and thereafter they would be appointed as regular Khalasis. Thus, the cut off date mentioned in the notification was that as on 1.7.2004, the candidate should be within the age limit of 38 + Training Period (three years) and he should not have crossed the said age limit.

5. It is replied by the Railway Board before the Tribunal that under the Act Apprenticeship Act, it is not obligatory on their part to provide employment to the Course Completed Act Apprentices. However, as clarified by the Railway Board in their letter dated 21.6.2004, the course completed Act Apprentices can be engaged as Substitutes in Group 'D' under General Managers' power in administrative exigencies, subject to their fulfilment of the extant instructions prescribed for such engagement, and it was decided to engage the course completed Act Apprentices as Substitutes in order to fill up the existing vacancies. As per the rules provided for recruitment/engagement, the maximum age limit prescribed for SC candidates for appointment to Group 'D' is 38 years duly relaxing the upper age limit to the extent of the period of Apprenticeship Training. Later, the Railway Board, by letter dated 4.5.2006, relaxed the upper age limit as 38 + the training period of Apprenticeship for all such candidates as a one time exemption. As the applicants did not fall within the age limit prescribed by the Board under letter dated 4.5.2006, their applications were not considered. It is the specific case of Board that even after extending relaxation to the extent of three years, being the period of Apprenticeship training undertaken, the applicants did not come within the prescribed age limit, resulting in their non-selection.

11. Though the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Railway Board, while arguing the matter, submitted that it is not obligatory on the part of the Railway Board to provide employment to the Course Completed Act Apprentices, but a decision is taken to engage them as Substitutes in Group 'D' vacancies, we are of the view that when once they have taken a decision to engage the trainees as Substitutes in Group 'D' vacancies, the Railway Board should have followed the recruitment rules, prevailing in the department. Moreover, once the decision is taken to relax the upper age limit, they should have relaxed the same for all the four categories as per the recruitment rules. As we have already held, the act of relaxation of the upper age limit only benefits the candidates belonging to OC and OBC candidates and not the candidates belonging to SC/ST.

16. For the discussions held above, the impugned orders dated 4-5-2006 and 5-6-2006 are liable to be quashed and that the Tribunal was right in doing so. At this juncture, we hasten to point out that till 18-8-1999 there were appointments from the list of certificate-holders of Course Completed Act Apprentices on the basis of their seniority, but this selection process was stopped by the Railway Board's order dated 19-8-1999. The ban on such recruitment was lifted by the Board's order dated 24-8-2004, whereupon applications were invited from the eligible Course Completed Act Apprentices for appointment to the post of Substitute Helpers Grade-II. The Board, while inviting applications, should have considered this long period of ban on recruitment and should have appropriately enhanced the age-limit in terms of the rules relating to reservation.