Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. The O.A. has been filed on multiple grounds mentioned in Para 5 and its sub-para of the O.A. We are skipping up narrating the same here and would be dealing the grounds which are stressed during the arguments, in the later part of this order.

5. Separate detailed replies have been filed on behalf of the respondents No. 1 to 3 and 4. In the reply filed on behalf of official respondents, a preliminary objection regarding the jurisdiction and maintainability of this O.A. at Jodhpur has been taken. It has been averred that the Railway Board have issued specific instructions that the written examination is a must and one is required to appear in the examination and also should pass the same. It has been specifically provided in Para 2(1) of the Circular that there will be no change in the procedure of recruitment and selection will be in accordance with the merits of the eligible candidates. However, where other things are equal between two candidates then the candidates who has completed Apprentices course in Railway Establishment will be given preference over the candidates who are not such apprentices. Thus, this being the position, the applicants cannot be exempted from the written test to be conducted by the respondents. The impugned notification Annexure-A/1 has been issued perfectly in accordance with the instructions issued by the Railway Board. The grounds raised in support of the O.A. are denied. It has also been averred that the applicants are trying to open the judgment of Supreme Court delivered in UPSRTC's case (supra) but, the ratio of the said judgment in no way can be applied in the instant case in as much as that judgment has been delivered in view of the circulars delivered by the State of Uttar Pradesh, wherein, the Act Apprentices were not required to under go any written examination. On the other hand, it has been specifically provided in the instant case that while making recruitment to Group 'D' posts, there will be no change in the procedure of recruitment. The Act Apprentices will be given preference in case of equal number of marks secured in the written examination to be conducted by the respondents, the preference shall be given to the Act Apprentices. Thus, there is no violation of Articles 14, 16, 21 or 300 (A) of the Constitution. The application may be ordered to be dismissed with costs.

13. On the contrary, Mr. Trivedi, learned Counsel for the official respondents has reiterated the contentions of the reply and has submitted that the respondents are more than willing to follow the law laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid case. He has submitted that they are strongly following the same keeping in view the very Railway Board's Circular on which reliance has been placed by the applicants. He has also submitted that none of the circulars including Annexure A-2 or R-1 are under challenge in this O.A. and the complete action has been taken in accordance with the procedure established by law. He has tried to explain as to how the clause of preference is to be administered and has clarified that other classification must be equal and thereafter, the preference is to be given to the Apprentices who have been given training in the Railway establishments. He has also submitted that the Railway Recruitment Board issued a Notification Annexure-A/1 perfectly as per rules in force and there is no illegality or arbitrariness or violation of Articles 14, 16, 21 and 300(A) of the Constitution of India, therefore, the applicants have no case calling interference by this Tribunal.

"12. In the back ground of what has been noted above, we state that the following would be kept in mind while dealing with the claim of trainees to get employment after successful completion of their training;
(1) Other things being equal, a trained apprentice should be given preference over direct recruits.
(2) For this, a trainee would not be required to get his name sponsored by any employment exchange. The decision of this Court in Union of India v. N. Hargopal would permit this.
(3) If age bar would come in the way of the trainee, the same would be relaxed in accordance with what is stated in this regard, if any, in the service rule concerned. If the service rule be silent on this aspect, relaxation to the extent of the period for which the apprentice had undergone training would be given.
(4) The training institute concerned would maintain a list of the persons trained yearwise. The persons trained earlier would be treated as senior to the persons trained later. In between the trained apprentices, preference shall be given to those who are senior.