Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. Facts of the case, in short, are as under:-

The petitioner was duly selected to the post of Assistant Yard Master having undergone the regular selection process conducted by the Central West Railway. But, before joining to the said post he was sent for NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:60880 2 WP-5089-2007 Traffic Apprentice Training for a period of 02 years from 12.5.1997. After successful completion of training, petitioner was permitted to join the duties on 16.7.1999. The respondents assigned seniority to the petitioner from the date of his joining on the post on 16.7.1999. Therefore, the petitioner submitted a representation claiming seniority from 12.5.1997 but the same was rejected by the respondents on 14.6.2002. Hence, the petitioner approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the "Tribunal") by filing an Original Application No.784/2004.

4. After issuance of notice in the original application, the respondents filed a reply stating that the petitioner was offered an appointment only on 12.5.1997 and after passing the required medical examination, he was appointed as a Traffic Apprentice on a fixed pay scale of Rs.1400-2300/-, whereas regular pay scale of Traffic Apprentice was Rs.1600- 2600/-. The training was followed by a final examination (written and viva voce), which was conducted by the committee consisting of Junior Administrative Grade Officers of Zonal Headquarters. Based on the recommendations of the Selection Committee in the final examination, the seniority of the Traffic Apprentice is determined in the respective cadres from the date of issuance of the posting order by the Divisions. These procedures are being applied universally on all the Divisions as per the guidelines issued by the Chief Personnel Officer, Mumbai, and the same are in conformity with the provisions laid down in para 302 read with para 303(a) of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual (for short "IREM'). It is further submitted that the petitioner was granted an increment during the NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:60880 3 WP-5089-2007 training period. In view of the above, the claim of the petitioner is liable to be rejected. Learned counsel for the applicant had placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Jabalpur Bench of the Tribunal in O.A.No.188/1991 [Shri Milan Kant Verma Vs. Union of India] decided on 18.12.1996, which has been discarded by the Tribunal and placing reliance on provisions of paragraph 303(a) of IREM, the Tribunal dismissed the original application.

8. We have learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

9. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed as a Traffic Apprentice through RRB after following the due process of selection. The moment he was sent for the training as a Traffic Apprentice, the relation of employer-employee relationship developed between the petitioner and the Railways. During the training period, the employees are governed under the Conduct Rules, and during the apprentice period, the services of the incumbent are liable to be terminated under the statutory rules framed by the Railways. Upon completion of successful training and clearing the examination, the petitioner was only posted to the post of Assistant Yard Master. Since the training period is mandatory, therefore, after every selection and before posting to the selected post, the employee is required to undergo training to perform the technical job.

10. The respondents have placed reliance on para 303(a) of IREM which only says that candidates who are to be sent for initial training to training school will rank in the seniority in the relevant cadre in the order of merit obtained at the examination held at the end of the training period before being posted to the working post. Therefore, this clause relates to inter se seniority between all the selected employees of the same batch who are sent to the training after selection. This also clarifies that those who join a subsequent course for any reason whatsoever and those who pass the NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:60880 5 WP-5089-2007 examination in subsequent attempts will rank junior to those who pass the examination in earlier courses. This principle nowhere debars counting of services for the purpose of the entire length of service from the initial date of appointment, immediately after selection. After completing the Traffic Apprentice training, the incumbent is liable to be posted in the relevant cadre in order of seniority on the basis of marks obtained in the examination. Thus, para 303 (a) of IREM only provides the mode of fixation of the seniority of those apprentices who passed the examination.