Judgment : R. Banumathi, J. 1. Challenge in this Writ Petition is the order of the Tribunal in O.A.No.520 of 2005 holding that notification dated 29.11.2004 and absorption of substitutes should not become a source of recruitment and directing the Appellants to strictly confine the recruitment in terms of Constitutional Scheme. 2. The educational qualification prescribed for Group 'D' in Railway Establishment is VIII standard pass. Group 'D' services mainly comprise of unskilled labour such as Khalasi, Sweepers, Sweeper-cum-Porters, Trackman etc. Up to 2001, recruitments for Group 'D' posts were to be made by Zonal Railways from open market at the level of Divisions/Workshops. By the letter dated 27.11.2001, the Railway Board advised that Group 'D' recruitment from open market was thereafter to be done by the Railway Recruitment Board. Again from 18.7.2005 Board advised that recruitments to Group 'D' posts are to be done by Zonal Railways themselves by creating a Recruitment Cell specially for recruitment purpose. Creation of a separate Recruitment Cell in a full-fledged manner and thereafter, issuing notification for Group 'D' recruitment and finalising the same needed considerable time. 3. By the letter dated 21.6.2004, the Board clarified that Course Completed Act Apprentices may be engaged as substitutes in administrative exigencies by the General Managers of Zonal Railways. The General Manager, Southern Railway approved engagement of Course Completed Act Apprentices trained in Railway Establishments as substitutes in Group 'D' safety category vacancies in order to meet out the bare minimum requirement of manpower. Case of Appellants is that the same was resorted to due to the reason that the Apprentices trained in the Railway Establishments would be in a position to directly undertake the work without any further training. Accordingly, notification No.P(S)/98/IV/P/Vol.III dated 29.11.2004 was issued calling for applications from the Course Completed Act Apprentices trained in Railway Establishments and process started. 4. Aggrieved by the said notification dated 29.11.2004 and engaging of Act Apprentices trained in Railway Establishments, Respondents 2 and 3 (Jaiganesh and Neelakandan) have filed O.A.No.520 of 2005 before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The grounds taken in O.A.No.520 of 2005 are that in the guise of engaging substitutes to regular vacancies in Group 'D' posts, the Appellants are attempting to make back door appointment ignoring the Rules and the Constitutional provisions. The grounds taken in O.A.No.520 of 2005 are that in the guise of engaging substitutes to regular vacancies in Group 'D' posts, the Appellants are attempting to make back door appointment ignoring the Rules and the Constitutional provisions. It was further contended that the Hon'ble Supreme Court time and again held that the Course Completed Act Apprentices have no right to be appointed in preference to other applicants and they have to go through the process of selection provided under the service regulations along with open market candidates and as such the impugned notification dated 29.11.2004 confining appointment to the Course Completed Act Apprentices is unconstitutional and illegal. It was averred that Section 22 of Apprentices Act makes it clear that it is not obligatory on the part of the employer to offer employment to any Apprentice who has completed apprenticeship training and in these circumstances, the action of the Railways in limiting the selection to the Course Completed Act Apprentices is illegal and is to be struck down. 5. Referring to (2006) 4 SCC 1 (Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Uma Devi and others) and (2006) 7 SCC 684 (Surendra Prasad Tewari v. Uttar Pradesh Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad and others) and observing that public employment has to be strictly in terms of the Constitutional Scheme, the Tribunal disposed of O.A.No.520 of 2005 (16.11.2006) holding as under:– "17. As the public employment has to be strictly in terms of the constitutional scheme, the respondents cannot short circuit their responsibility for recruitment of departmental posts through Public Notice from the market. The relief sought for by the applicants in this O.A. is moulded to the extent that the Notification dated 29.11.2004 should not become a source of recruitment for departmental position en mass." Aggrieved by the said order, the Railway Administration has filed the present Writ Petition. 6. At the time when the Writ Petition was admitted, on 13.3.2007, the Court has granted interim stay of the order of the Tribunal. 7. 4th Respondent -Dakshan Railway Employees Union represents the Course Completed Act Apprentices. Case of 4th Respondent Union is that since the Act Apprentices were trained for three years to work in coach and wagon maintenance, electrical, diesel, signal and telecommunication, considering the exigencies of safety, they could be appointed directly without training. 7. 4th Respondent -Dakshan Railway Employees Union represents the Course Completed Act Apprentices. Case of 4th Respondent Union is that since the Act Apprentices were trained for three years to work in coach and wagon maintenance, electrical, diesel, signal and telecommunication, considering the exigencies of safety, they could be appointed directly without training. Further case of 4th Respondent is that the job is only temporary in nature and rights of other persons are not affected by such appointment as substitutes and that the action of Railway Administration is lawful and valid. 8. 5th Respondent – ITI Unemployed Welfare Association got itself impleaded by filing Petition in M.P.No.1 of 2009. Case of 5th Respondent is that the members of the Association were eagerly awaiting call from various Central and Statement Government Institutions calling for recruitment to qualified and semi-qualified posts through open market and while so, the Ministry of Railways/Railway Board had issued the impugned notification dated 29.11.2004 calling for application only from the Course Completed Act Apprentices, who had undergone training in various Railway Establishment to form list of suitable candidates for engagement as substitutes and in March 2005, formed a list of 2486 Apprentices for absorbing them in the regular posts. It is further averred that the Railways committed further illegalities in conferring on such Act Apprentices temporary status on completion of 120 days service and thereafter, have been absorbed in the regular posts as Helper-II on the pay scale of Rs.5200/- etc. and under the guise of engaging substitutes, the Railway Board is making back door appointment to regular vacancies in Group 'D' posts and such absorption is contrary to the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Uma Devi's case. 9. Main grievance of the 5th Respondent and the Applicants in O.A.No.520 of 2005 (Respondents 2 and 3) is that in the guise of engaging substitutes in regular vacancies in Group 'D' posts, the Railway Administration is attempting to back door appointment ignoring the Rules and Constitutional provisions. 10. Respondents 6 to 92 – Course Completed employees who were engaged by the Railway Department were impleaded as parties to the proceedings as per the order in M.P.No.1 of 2010 dated 15.03.2011. 11. We have heard Mr. R. Thiagarajan, learned Senior Counsel for Appellants appearing along with Mr. V.G. Suresh Kumar. We have also heard Mr. 10. Respondents 6 to 92 – Course Completed employees who were engaged by the Railway Department were impleaded as parties to the proceedings as per the order in M.P.No.1 of 2010 dated 15.03.2011. 11. We have heard Mr. R. Thiagarajan, learned Senior Counsel for Appellants appearing along with Mr. V.G. Suresh Kumar. We have also heard Mr. R. Singaravelan, learned counsel for 4th Respondent and Respondents 6 to 92 and Mr. R. Muthukumaraswamy, learned Senior Counsel for 5th Respondent appearing along with Mr. A. Jenasenan. 12. Mr. A. Thiagarajan, learned Senior Counsel for Appellants submitted that engagement of Course Completed Act Apprentices was only as substitutes to tide over short term and in exigencies of services. It was further contended that the Course Completed Act Apprentices at Railway Establishment had also gone through the selection process and therefore, it cannot be contended that it is a back door entry. Drawing our attention to the interim order dated 27.8.2009 granted by this Court, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that in furtherance of the interim order, 530 substitutes were engaged in safety categories and the learned Senior Counsel prayed for a direction permitting absorption of 530 substitutes engaged in the safety category vacancies during November 2009. 13. Mr. R. Singaravelan, learned counsel for 4th Respondent Union as well as representing counsel for Mr. S. Bharath Kumar for Respondents 6 to 92 submitted that since the Act Apprentices were trained for three years to work, considering the exigencies, they could be appointed directly without training. The learned counsel submitted that engaging the apprentices as substitutes cannot be said to be de hors the Indian Railways Establishment Code. 14. Placing reliance upon Uma Devi's case and Surendera Prasad Tewari's case, Mr. R. Muthukumarasamy, learned Senior Counsel for 5th Respondent submitted that public appointment has to be strictly in terms of the Constitutional Scheme and Appellants cannot be permitted to absorb 530 substitutes. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that those substitutes were not selected as per the Rules and they cannot be regularised by the order of the Court and that those substitutes are to be directed to undergo regular selection process like any other candidates. 15. Group 'D' posts were filled up till 2001 by Zonal Railways from open market at the level of Divisions, Workshops. From 27.11.2001, the recruitment to Group 'D' posts from open market was done by the Railway Recruitment Board. 15. Group 'D' posts were filled up till 2001 by Zonal Railways from open market at the level of Divisions, Workshops. From 27.11.2001, the recruitment to Group 'D' posts from open market was done by the Railway Recruitment Board. From 18.7.2005, the recruitment to Group 'D' posts are to be done by Zonal Railways themselves instead of going through Railway Recruitment Board. 16. Appellants indented for 652 Group 'D' posts before the Railway Recruitment Board. In the mean while, considering various references received from the Zonal Railways, the Railway Board clarified that Course Completed Act Apprentices can be engaged as substitutes in Group 'D' and General Manager's power in administrative exigencies subject to their fulfilment of the extant instructions prescribed for such engagement. According to Appellants, considering the exigencies of services and in view of the Board's letter dated 21.6.2004 clarifying that the Course Completed Act Apprentices can be engaged as substitutes under General Manager's power, it was decided to withdraw the indent placed before the Railway Recruitment Board and the action was initiated to engage 632 Course Completed Act Apprentices as substitutes in the first phase. Accordingly, notification dated 29.11.2004 calling for applications from the Course Completed Act Apprentices trained in the Railway Establishment was issued and process started. 17. Rule 216 and Rule 217 of the Indian Railway Establishment Code Volume-I govern the recruitment of Group 'C' and Group 'D' posts. The rules for the recruitment of Non-gazetted Railway servants are contained in Indian Railway Establishment Manual. Rule 179 of Indian Railway Establishment Manual Volume-I authorises the Railway Administration to recruit Group 'D' posts by issuing Employment Notice by circulating copies to Employment Exchanges within the recruitment unit and also to the recognised Associations of SCs/STs, so that wide publicity is given with a view to attracting maximum number of local residents. 18. As per Rules 216 and 217 of Indian Railway Establishment Code Volume-I and Rule 179 of Indian Railway Establishment Manual Volume-I, the Railway Administration is to recruit Group 'D' posts by issuing Employment Notice by circulating copies to Employment Exchanges within the recruitment unit and also to the recognised Associations of SCs/STs, so that wide publicity is given with a view to attracting maximum number of local residents. But notification dated 29.11.2004 calling for applications from the Course Completed Act Apprentices trained in the Railway Establishments is in clear violation of Rules of Indian Railway Establishment Code and that the Tribunal has rightly restrained the Railway Administration from using option of taking substitutes under notification dated 29.11.2004. 19. In Uma Devi's case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court clearly held that equality for public employment is a basic feature of the Constitution. In Paragraph (43), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:– “43. Thus, it is clear that adherence to the rule of equality in public employment is a basic feature of our Constitution and since the rule of law is the core of our Constitution, a court would certainly be disabled from passing an order upholding a violation of Article 14 or in ordering the overlooking of the need to comply with the requirements of Article 14 read with Article 16 of the Constitution. Therefore, consistent with the scheme for public employment, this Court while laying down the law, has necessarily to hold that unless the appointment is in terms of the relevant rules and after a proper competition among qualified persons, the same would not confer any right on the appointee. If it is a contractual appointment, the appointment comes to an end at the end of the contract, if it were an engagement or appointment on daily wages or casual basis, the same would come to an end when it is discontinued. Similarly, a temporary employee could not claim to be made permanent on the expiry of his term of appointment. It has also to be clarified that merely because a temporary employee or a casual wage worker is continued for a time beyond the term of his appointment, he would not be entitled to be absorbed in regular service or made permanent, merely on the strength of such continuance, if the original appointment was not made by following a due process of selection as envisaged by the relevant rules. It is not open to the court to prevent regular recruitment at the instance of temporary employees whose period of employment has come to an end or of ad hoc employees who by the very nature of their appointment, do not acquire any right. It is not open to the court to prevent regular recruitment at the instance of temporary employees whose period of employment has come to an end or of ad hoc employees who by the very nature of their appointment, do not acquire any right. The High Courts acting under Article 226 of the Constitution, should not ordinarily issue directions for absorption, regularisation, or permanent continuance unless the recruitment itself was made regularly and in terms of the constitutional scheme. Merely because an employee had continued under cover of an order of the court, which we have described as “litigious employment” in the earlier part of the judgment, he would not be entitled to any right to be absorbed or made permanent in the service. In fact, in such cases, the High Court may not be justified in issuing interim directions, since, after all, if ultimately the employee approaching it is found entitled to relief, it may be possible for it to mould the relief in such a manner that ultimately no prejudice will be caused to him, whereas an interim direction to continue his employment would hold up the regular procedure for selection or impose on the State the burden of paying an employee who is really not required. The courts must be careful in ensuring that they do not interfere unduly with the economic arrangement of its affairs by the State or its instrumentalities or lend themselves the instruments to facilitate the bypassing of the constitutional and statutory mandates." 20. After referring to Uma Devi's case and also Surendra Prasad Tewari's case, the Tribunal has rightly held that regular posts are to be filled only through open recruitment in accordance with recruitment rules and in keeping with the spirit and law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the Tribunal. 21. After referring to Paras 2, 4.4, 5.1 and 5.3 of Master Circular, the Tribunal held that the Railway Administration has to ensure that notification dated 29.11.2004 is restricted only to take Course Completed Act Apprentices as substitutes in a limited way to manage the operational needs and to meet the requirements of emergent situation. 22. 21. After referring to Paras 2, 4.4, 5.1 and 5.3 of Master Circular, the Tribunal held that the Railway Administration has to ensure that notification dated 29.11.2004 is restricted only to take Course Completed Act Apprentices as substitutes in a limited way to manage the operational needs and to meet the requirements of emergent situation. 22. As per Master Circular No.20, Para 2, "substitutes" is defined as under:– "Substitutes" refer to persons in Indian Railway Establishment of regular scales of pay and allowances applicable to posts falling vacant because of absence on leave or otherwise of permanent or temporary Railways servant and which cannot be kept vacant." As pointed out by the Tribunal, by very nature, the substitutes are expected to be few and far between meant for managing emergent requirements, in the exigencies of service for smooth running of the operations. 23. Para 4.4 of Master Circular provides for giving temporary status. Para 4.4. reads as under:– "4.4 The conferment of temporary status after completion of four months continuous service in the case of others and three months continuous service in the case of substitute teachers mentioned in paras 4.2 and 3 above does not entitle them to automatic absorption/appointment to Railway service unless they are selected in the approved manner for appointment or absorption to regular posts." 24. Paras 5.1 and 5.3 of Master Circular deals with scope for the regular absorption. Paras 5.1 and 5.3 read as under:– "5.1 A Screening/empanelment of Casual Labour/Substitutes for purpose of absorption in regular employment be restricted to only those who are in the current casual labour/substitutes Registers except such of them as are absent on two occasions when called for such screening. For this purpose the said 'Register' should be maintained in duplicate. 5.3 The Screening Committee should make good the short fall, if any, by resorting to direct recruitment from the open market in each Group 'D' (Class IV) category before the panel is published. Ordinarily, the question of shortfall in non-technical categories should not arise." A combined reading of Paras 2, 4.4, 5.1 and 5.3 of Master Circular, it is clear that there is process of planned absorption of Course Completed Act Apprentices into Railways and absorption of Course Completed Act Apprentices cannot be a source of regular recruitment. Tribunal rightly held that notification dated 29.11.2004 is not to be a source of inspiration. 25. Tribunal rightly held that notification dated 29.11.2004 is not to be a source of inspiration. 25. In this context, it is relevant to refer to the interim order granted by the Court dated 27.8.2009 and the subsequent developments. Stating that huge number of vacancies existing at present and it is very much essential to engage the Course Completed Act Apprentices as substitutes to tide over the crisis, in M.P.No.1 of 2007, Appellants seek permission to engage substitutes in the safety category vacancies. By the order dated 27.8.2009 in M.P.No.1 of 2007, the Court permitted the Railway Administration to engage substitutes in the safety categories. The order dated 27.8.2009 reads as under:– "For the reasons stated in the additional affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioners are permitted to go on to engage substitutes in the safety categories, in view of the urgency explained, subject to finalisation of the selection, as per the notification dated 24.11.2007, within a period of three (3) months, with a further direction not to regularise the substitutes engaged, till the finalisation of the recruitment." 26. It is stated that in furtherance of the interim order of the Court dated 27.8.2009, 530 candidates were engaged as substitutes in the safety categories during November 2009 and they are still continuing without being a fair as regular status. Subsequently, number of notifications have been issued and the Railway Administration had filled up Group 'D' vacancies through public employment. It was stated that Railway Recruitment Cell, Chennai had issued Employment Notification No.2 of 2007 for recruitment of 3698 candidates in Group 'D' i.e. 3517 for Southern Railway and 181 for Integral Coach Factory and in view of Board's letter dated 24.6.2009, the Railway Recruitment Cell has not taken any further action. It was also stated that as per the notification, 4,03,880 persons applied for the post and the recruitment process involved Physical Efficiency Test. After scrutinising the applications, the eligible applicants were 2,95,111 and Railway Recruitment Cell had completed major portion of the recruitment process in December 2012 by empanelling 3696 candidates and the balance two candidates were also empanelled in March 2013. 27. After scrutinising the applications, the eligible applicants were 2,95,111 and Railway Recruitment Cell had completed major portion of the recruitment process in December 2012 by empanelling 3696 candidates and the balance two candidates were also empanelled in March 2013. 27. According to Appellants, in 2010 a separate Employment Notification No.3 of 2010 dated 27.11.2010 for filling up of 873 Group 'D' vacancies by Ex-servicemen was issued and selection list for 873 candidates were published and all the eligible persons were appointed after conducting the required formalities as per the Rules. It was stated that Employment Notification No.5 of 2010 was issued on 15.12.2010 for filling up of 3592 Group 'D' vacancies and so far 2963 candidates have been empanelled. 28. Drawing our attention to various notifications issued for filling up of Group 'D' vacancies, the learned Senior Counsel for Appellants submitted that insofar as 530 substitutes, who were engaged in safety categories is in furtherance of the interim order of the Court and prayed to issue an appropriate direction permitting absorption of those 530 substitutes. 29. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel for the 5th Respondent contended that absorption of 530 substitutes in the safety category vacancies is in violation of the rules and also the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Uma Devi's case and submitted that those 530 substitutes may not be absorbed. 30. The principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Uma Devi's case is in respect of irregular appointments through back door entry. Insofar as irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) in Paragraph (53), the Hon'ble Supreme Court directed the Union of India and State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularise as one-time measure. In the case on hand, engaging of 530 substitutes in safety categories is stated to be in furtherance of the interim order of the Court. 31. In the further affidavit (dt. 18.8.2009) filed by the Appellants, it is stated that the candidates for Act apprentices training are taken based on the numbers prescribed by the Directorate of Apprenticeship Training by issuing open notification calling for applications from open market with copies to Employment Exchanges and selections are being conducted by a process of written test and viva voce. Therefore, it cannot be said that engagement of substitutes in the safety categories are illegal appointments. Therefore, it cannot be said that engagement of substitutes in the safety categories are illegal appointments. As discussed earlier, Paras 2, 4.4, 5.1 and 5.3 of Master Circular provides for engagement of substitutes and conferring permanent status and then absorption. Therefore, engagement of substitutes cannot be said to be without reference to extant rules. The aforesaid 530 substitutes are said to have been working from 2000. Having regard to the mode of selection of candidates for Act apprentices and keeping in view the period of their working, the Appellants be permitted to regularise the services of 530 substitutes from the date of their engagement. 32. In the result, confirming the order of Tribunal in O.A.No.520 of 2005 dated 16.11.2006, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, we permit the Appellants to regularise the services of 530 substitutes engaged in safety category vacancies from the date of their engagement. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.