Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 792 (JHR)

Union Of India v. Union Of India

2007-10-04

AMARESHWAR SAHAY, M.KARPAGAVINAYAGAM

body2007
ORDER Amareshwar Sahay, J. 1. Heard. Mr. Mahesh Tewari, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. The main ground on which the impugned order of the Central Administrative Tribunal has been assailed is that in order to allow a candidate to appear in the India Trade Test, he must possess the apprentice training certificate duty recognized by Regional Directorate of Apprenticeship Training, Salt Lake, Kolkata, whereas the petitioner had undergone the apprentice training from Don Bosco I.T.C., Ranchi and got the certificate from the Government of Bihar, which was not recognized by Regional Directorate of Apprenticeship Training, Salt Lake, Kolkata, 2. There is no dispute of the fact that the respondent/ applicant after getting training in the trade of fitter from Don Bosco I.T.C., Ranchi was awarded Trade Certificate by the Department of Labour, Employment and Training, Government of Bihar, Pacna. On the basis of the said training certificate, he applied for selection to the post of Apprentice Training in Eastern Railway and he got through in the written test and in the interview and then was finally selected as Apprentice Trainee. Thereafter, hie was posted at Gomoh Loco Shed and he also successfully completed one year training in the Fitter grade. Till this stage the Railway did not raise any objection questioning the recognition of the training certificate he d by the applicant, which was issued by the Government of Bihar 3. Trouble to the applicant started only when he applied for issuance of admit card for appearing in India Trade Test, which was refused on 09/04/2003 on the ground that the applicant, was not having the apprentice training certificate of an Institute, which is duly recognized by the Regional Directorate of Apprenticeship Training, Salt Lake, Kolkata. 4. It is submitted by the petitioner/Railway, that at the time of selection of Trainee Apprentices under Apprentices Act, 1961 they were not aware that the certificate submitted by the petitioner, i.e. Don Bosco, ITC, Ranchi is not admissible because the Fitter Trade in Don Bosco was not affiliated with the NCVT. At the time of scrutiny of the applications the guidelines in this regard was not known to their office. The mistake committed by them in allowing the applicant to sit for the examination and thereafter further undergoing the training was detected only by the Regional Directorate of Apprenticeship Training, Kolkata. 5. At the time of scrutiny of the applications the guidelines in this regard was not known to their office. The mistake committed by them in allowing the applicant to sit for the examination and thereafter further undergoing the training was detected only by the Regional Directorate of Apprenticeship Training, Kolkata. 5. In our view, objection, if any, questioning the recognition of the certificate possessed by the applicant could have been raised at the entry point only, when he had applied for appearing in the written Test for selection for the posts of Apprentice in the year 1999. Now, when the applicant has already been selected after the written test and the Interview etc. and now he has also completed successfully the one year training programme in Fitter Grade in 2002, conducted by the Railway, then at this stage, such objection regarding recognition of the apprentice certificate cannot be held to be legal and justified. 6. The Central Administrative Tribunal has rightly taken the view that the applicant should not be made to suffer for no fault on his part and this is a matter in which the career of the applicant is involved. If, merely on such technicality the petitioner is allowed to suffer for the fault, if any, committed by the Railway itself, the same cannot be sustained in law. It is also important to note that the petitioner/Railway has nowhere taken the stand that the applicant was not suitable. Therefore, the suitability of the applicant is not in doubt. 7. In our view, the Central Administrative Tribunal has rightly set aside the order dated 09/04/2003 refusing to allow the petitioner to ail In India Trade Test and thereby, directed the concerned authority to exempt the applicant from requirement of training by RDAT, Salt Lake, Kolkata. 8. In view of the facts and circumstances already discussed above, this writ petition is dismissed. However, as submitted by Mr. Mahcsh Tewari that the General Manager, East Central Railway, Hazipur, has no power or jurisdiction to issue the order as directed by the Tribunal and, therefore, we modify the said order of the Tribunal to the extent that such order, as directed by the Tribunal, shall be issued by the competent authority. With this modification in the impugned order of the Tribunal, this writ petition is dismissed. M. Karpaga Vinayagam, C.J. 9. I agree.