Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

9. Placing reliance on all the above said Rules of the IREM, it is contended by learned Counsel for the second respondent that the notification calling for application to fill up the vacancies of Traffic Apprentices on selection and training, would be arbitrary and not contemplated under the IREM.

10. It is the contention of the petitioners-Department that the scheme of recruitment of Traffic Apprentices introduced by the Railway - vide it's letter No. E.(NG).II/84/RC/III/15/AIRF, dated 15.5.1987 envisaged that the recruitment of Traffic Apprentices would be to the grade Rs. 1600-2600 (present Rs. 5500-9000} and the period of training would be two years for inducting qualified and trained persons in the Traffic Department. The All India Station Masters Association challenged this scheme of induction of Traffic Apprentices into the intermediary grade in the category of Station Masters in scale of Rs. 1600-2600 (present Rs. 5500-9000) before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam, contending that the Railway Board's order was detrimental to the interests of the applicants and that the scheme adversely affects the rights of the members of the Association. The Tribunal at Ernakulam, by its order in O.A. No. 67 of 1991, allowed the Application by setting aside the scheme of induction of Traffic Apprentices and quashing the Railway Board's Circular dated 15.5.87 treating the same as only administrative instructions However, a Civil Appeal was filed by the Union of India before the Supreme Court on the ground that the Tribunal cannot quash the Board's Circular treating the same as administrative instructions and that the Railway Board had only exercised the power vested in them and the recruitment would be to the extent of 25% only, i.e. 15% from open market and 10% by selection of Traffic Apprentices from the serving non-ministerial graduates through the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination. The Supreme Court of India allowed the Civil Appeal in Civil Appeal No. 5410 of 1991, dated 6.5.1996, in the case of Union of India v. M. Basker and Ors. , thereby giving its seal of approval to the scheme of induction of Traffic Apprentices.

15. It is further contended by the petitioners that the second respondent, pursuant to the notification dated 28.6.1999, volunteered for the post of Traffic Apprentice as he was a serving employee under 10% quota available to serving employees, however, on 20.01.2000, the second respondent expressed his unwillingness to appear for the Examination which was to be held on 22.01.2000 and thereafter, he has filed the present Original Application challenging the notification dated 28.6.1999. It is therefore contended that when once the second respondent applied for the post of Traffic Apprentice pursuant to the notification dated 28.6.1999, he is estopped from challenging the scheme of appointment of Traffic Apprentices. It is also contended that the second respondent could not be considered for promotion under 75% promotional quota as several employees senior to him were already waiting for promotion and that his seniority was No. 37, and since there was no avenue for him to get promoted, the second respondent has filed the Original Application and that too, without impleading the 35 employees who were selected as Traffic Apprentices under 10% serving employees quota. Hence, it is contended that non-joinder of the parties would be fatal to the case of the second respondent/applicant in the Original Application.

5. To decide the controversy, it would be apposite to apprise ourselves as to what was the procedure of recruitment before the memorandum in question; and what was really meant by the word 'Apprentices'. We have put this aspect at the forefront because the Tribunals, who have granted the benefit of higher pay scale, have done so, with respect, without applying their mind to the relevant provisions of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual, hereinafter the Manual, dealing with the recruitment of (1) Traffic Apprentices; and (2) Commercial Apprentices. Rule 123 of 1968 Edition of the Manual deals with recruitment of Traffic Apprentices and Rule 127 with Commercial Apprentices. It is apparent from this Manual that the posts to be held by Traffic Apprentices before the 1987 were of: (1) Assistant Station Masters; (2) Assistant Yard Masters; (3) Traffic Inspectors; and (4) Section Controller (in the scale of Rs. 1400-2600). Insofar as Commercial Apprentices are concerned, these posts were of: (1) Assistant Claims Inspectors/Supervisors; (2) Assistant Commercial Inspectors; (3) Assistant Rates Inspectors (Goods and Coaching); and (4) Other Inspectors for outdoor duties. This apart, the pre-1987 position was that in the Traffic and Commercial Departments, posts in the pay scale of Rs. 1400-2300 were being filled up to the extent of 25% by direct recruits, of which 15% were from open market and 10% from Limited Departmental Competitive Examination; and the balance 75% by promotion from lower grade. Further, the term 'Apprentices' was being actually used to cover 'direct recruits', as distinct from 'promotees'. Another thing to be noted, which again missed the Tribunals in question, is that when the pay scale of Rs. 1400-2300 was being paid to Traffic/Commercial Apprentices, the higher pay scale of Rs. 1600-2660 was being paid to those who were in a higher grade.

17. On a reading of the relevant Rules of the IREM, it is seen that the 10% quota applicable to the Departmental staff to fill up 25% vacancies of Traffic Apprentices after passing the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination by undergoing training, will not categorise them as a fresh Apprentices as defined under the Apprentices Act. The Tribunal apparently has failed to take into consideration the difference between the Apprentices as defined under the Apprentices Act and the Traffic Apprentices sought to be recruited by memorandum dated 15.5.1987. That the Apprentices do not have any right for employment or appointment against a substantive vacancy in the cadre in the department, is also based on misconception. The nature of appointment of the Traffic Apprentices has been clearly sped out in the affidavit which is extracted in paragraph 13 above. Therefore, the plea of the second respondent that reservation made for Traffic Apprentices to be appointed in future to fill up the post of Station Master Grade-II, is factually incorrect. The relevant Rule of the IREM was reiterated to hold that there was no guarantee of employment to such Apprentices and therefore, the notification pinpointing vacancy was not in accordance with the provisions contained in the IREM. We find the contention as totally untenable and fanciful in view of what has been stated above.