Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. The applicants have, inter alia, have challenged the policy decision dated 30.8.2004 (A/1) and have sought for its setting aside with further direction to the respondents to consider their candidature also for the purpose of engagement to the post of Fresh Face substitute in Group 'D' and provided with appointment with all consequential benefits. The O.A. has been grounded on diverse grounds enumerated in Para 5 and its sub-paras, which we shall deal in later part of this order.

5. The respondents have contested the claim of applicants and have files a detailed and exhaustive counter reply to the O.A. It has been averred that the impugned order is a policy decision taken to engage the fresh faces substitutes as a time gap arrangement purely on temporary measure till regular selection takes place. If the applicants' grievances is to be redressed, it will become a direct recruitment which is otherwise within the domain of the Railway Recruitment Board (for brevity RRB), to whom the indents have already been placed. The very purpose of engagement of Apprentice Trainees, who have taken the training in the Railways is as a time gap arrangement, would be rendered as redundant. Therefore, on this preliminary objection itself, the O.A. cannot be sustained. The further objection regarding maintainability of the O.A. as set out in the reply is that GM has framed the policy in accordance with the power conferred by the Railway Board vide letter dated 21.6.2004. There are instructions, which envisage that the Course Completed Act Apprentice in Railway Establishment can be given preference over the Course Completed Act Apprentice in establishments other than Railways. Thus no legal right of the applicants has been infringed and challenge of the impugned policy is not justified.

21. We shall now take up the most vital issue regarding the separate classification and hostile discrimination. Much has been said that as per rules the Course Completed Act Apprentices from Railway Establishments are to be given preference and there is nothing wrong in the impugned policy. We shall trace the existing rules and instructions on this matter. Recently a consolidated circular has been issued in this regard by the R/Bd. that provides as under:

19. Absorption of Course Completed Act Apprentices 19.1 In terms of Para 10 of Schedule V of the Apprenticeship Rules, 1991 notified on 15.7.1992 by the Ministry of Labour, it shall not be obligatory on the part of employer to offer an employment to the apprentice on completion of period of his apprenticeship training in his establishment nor shall it be obligatory on the part of the apprentice to accept an employment under the employer.
19.2 In pursuant to the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgments dated 12.1.1995 in the case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Ors. v. U.P. Parivahan Nigam Shikshuk Berozgar Sangh and Ors., the following instructions have been issued:
19.2.2. For recruitment to the posts of:
* Skilled Artisans, * Group 'C posts for which Engineering Degree and Engineering, * Diploma are the qualifications, * Diesel Electric Assistants, * Group 'D' posts.
Other things being equal between two candidates the candidate who is Course Completed Act Apprentice trained in Railway Establishment will be given preference over the candidate who is not such an apprentice. However, there would be no change in the procedure of the recruitment and the selection for recruitment will be in accordance with the merits of the eligible candidates.
The bare perusal of the aforesaid provisions reveals that Course Completed Act Apprentices in Railway Establishment are only to be given preference over other apprentices and nothing more. The preference only extended when other things are equal i.e. in case the candidates have got the same merits, the Course Completed Act Apprentice are to be preferred and that does not mean that the such Course Completed Act Apprentice can be ignored altogether.

22. The law on classification is fairly well settled by the Apex Court and for that purpose the decision in case of D.S. Nakara v. Union of India , is instructive where Their Lordships of Supreme have held as under: