Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

7. On facts, it has been averred that applicants have neither submitted their particulars nor shown any common cause; hence joint application is not maintainable. The applicants do not fulfill the eligibility criterion since they have not undergone training from any of the Railway Establishment of Bikaner Division and Bikaner Workshop as per the policy issued by the GM. The whole exercise is being taken as per the circular issued by the Railway Board on dated 21.8.2004. The policy decision taken by the Railways in administrative exigencies cannot be permitted to be assailed. The Course Completed Act Apprentices in Railway have been specially trained in the Railways for safety. where is no requirement to hold direct recruitment for recruiting the substitute purely on temporary basis. The further defence as set out in the reply is that Course Completed Act Apprentice trained in Railway establishments are much better to deal with contingency occurring in the Railway as far as workers are concerned. Such candidates can be preferred on whom the Railways have also spent certain amount of money so that they can be trained according to their needs. The moment, direct recruitment takes place the applicants shall have opportunity to compete with all candidates including the Course Completed Act Apprentice in Railways establishments. There is also no question of back door entry. The applicants have miserably failed to demonstrate to show as to in what way the policy decision is inconsistent to the instructions of Railway Board. The grounds enunciated in the O.A. have been denied by repeating the factual aspects as noticed above.

8. Mr. S.N. Trivedi, the learned Counsel for the applicants has reiterated the facts and grounds mentioned in the pleadings of the applicants and has strenuously contended that the respondents are resorting to recruitment in the garb of engagement as fresh faces. Such candidate would acquire certain rights with the passage of time and the vacant posts of Group 'D' are intended to be filled in from amongst the Course Completed Act Apprentice trained in Railway establishments. Once the posts are filled in, the applicants in particular and other Course Completed Act Apprentices trained in other than Railway establishments in general shall be deprived from the race of employment. There is no distinguishing feature in the Course Completed Act Apprentice trained in Railway establishments and that of candidates trained in other institutions. Finally all have to pass same examination conducted by NCVT and obtain the National Trade Certificate. These can be no separate reasonable classification amongst the same class but the respondents are endeavouring to make separate sub-class for no good reason except to give employment to the favourites of the respondents.

16. Now we would advert the sequence of events, which are gathered from the office file relating to engagement fresh face 'substitutes'. A letter dated 17.6.2004 was originated by the national president of All India Railway Act Apprentices Organisation addressed to the General Manager, North West Railway to consider appointment of Course Completed Act Apprentices as 'substitutes' on the ground that in other Rail ways such apprentices have been regularised in Group 'D' after taking viva voce. The matter was taken up with such Zonal Railways vide letter dated 18.6.2004. On the other hand, the Railway Board issued a letter dated 21.6.2004 in the following terms:

20. We would now clear the position of the circular dated 21.6.2004. As per the records, the same came to be issued in reference made by some of the Zonal Railways where they had proposed for engagement of fresh face substitute from amongst Course Completed Act Apprentice in Railway Establishment. The R/Bd. have clarified the position but the words 'Course Completed Act Apprentice' have only been used. The same contains the qualifying words that Course Completed Act Apprentices can be engaged as 'substitutes' in Group 'D' under G.M.' s power in administrative exigencies subject to their fulfillment extant instructions prescribed for such engagements. The instructions do not envisage that the Course Completed Act Apprentices from Railway Establishments alone are to be engaged as substitutes. Incidentally, it may be pointed out that the GM has neither framed any policy vide letter 30.8.2004 as such nor any rule made by the Railway vide letter dated 21.6.2004 which only as answer to a reference and nothing more. As a matter of fact, there was a ban on engagement as substitute which has been lifted only on 24.8.2004 as indicated above but the same seems to be not linked while issuing the clarification on dated 21.6.2004 which could not have been so issued had the communication gap not been there. Otherwise, also the GM has no power to frame any rule in respect of non-gazetted Railway servants, which is inconsistent to the rules framed by the R/Bd or the rules framed by President of India (Paras 123 and 124 of IREC Vol-I 1985 Edn refers).