Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 110 (RAJ)

Kishan Lal v. Union of India

2021-01-15

CHANDRA KUMAR SONGARA, PRAKASH GUPTA

body2021
ORDER : 1. This Civil Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the order dated 10.07.2020 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (for short, 'the CAT') in Original Application (for short, 'the OA') No. 118/2012, whereby the OA filed by the petitioner-applicant has been dismissed. 2. Facts of the case, as per petitioners, are that they were trained as Apprentices under the Apprentice Act, 1961 by the respondent-Railways. In the year 1992, the petitioners submitted their applications to the respondents to give them appointment on a suitable post as per their qualifications and training imparted to them during the period of Apprenticeship, but when the same were not considered, the petitioners filed an OA before the CAT. The aforesaid OA was decided by the CAT on 28.10.1994 with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for appointment to any suitable post with due sympathy, if such appointments did not specifically go contrary to Rules. Since thereafter the petitioners were not given appointment, they again filed OA No. 320/1996 before the CAT, which was decided vide order dated 4.2.1998 directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners in the Skilled Artisan Category, against 25% direct recruitment quota, to be filled up from open competition, as and when vacancies are advertised. In compliance with the aforesaid order, the petitioners duly submitted their applications. However, being dissatisfied with the aforesaid order passed by the CAT, the petitioners filed a D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5205/1999, which was decided vide order dated 14.2.2006 directing the respondents to consider the petitioners' candidature against the quota of 25% or 50% as per the Rules. When the compliance was not made, the petitioners filed a D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 120/2008. During the pendency of the contempt petition, the respondents issued an advertisement. Pursuant to the advertisement issued by the respondents, the petitioners submitted their applications, but the respondents rejected their candidature ignoring the order passed by the CAT as well the Coordinate Bench of this Court. The said D.B. Civil Contempt Petition was decided vide order dated 17.2.2011. However, it was left open to the petitioners to file an appropriate application before the Tribunal against the rejection of their candidature. They filed the OA before the Tribunal, which was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to file a fresh OA. The said D.B. Civil Contempt Petition was decided vide order dated 17.2.2011. However, it was left open to the petitioners to file an appropriate application before the Tribunal against the rejection of their candidature. They filed the OA before the Tribunal, which was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to file a fresh OA. Accordingly, the petitioners filed a fresh OA No. 482/2011, which has been dismissed by the Tribunal vide order dated 10.7.2020. Hence, this writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners has submitted that the petitioners possessed the requisite educational qualification for being appointed on the post of Apprentice/Skilled Artisan Category-III and they underwent 3 years training also in their respective trades and certificate to this effect was also issued in their favour. On completion of the apprentice training, the petitioners were entitled to be given appointment in preference to untrained employees. However, the learned Tribunal has failed to consider this aspect of the matter and dismissed the petitioners' OA, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be quashed and set-aside. 4. Heard. Considered. 5. It is no doubt true that the petitioners underwent the training from 30.6.1986 to 30.5.1989, but the OA was filed in the year 2012 in relation to the advertisement issued in the year 2007. 6. It is relevant to mention here that the candidature of the petitioners was considered and rejected by the respondents strictly as per the General Instructions contained in the Employment notice No. 2/2007. As per Clause 2 of the General Instructions of the said Employment Notice issued by the respondents, age of the candidates was to be reckoned on 1.7.2007. Further, sub-clause 2.1.1 of Clause 2 provided that relaxation in upper age limit to the extent of five years could be given to the candidates belonging to SC/ST Category. Further, sub-clause 2.2.2 provided that for those candidates, who were already working in the Railways for not less than 3 years, the maximum age limit would be 40, 43 and 45 years for those belonging to General, OBC and SC/ST category candidates respectively. So far as educational qualifications for the post of Technician-III (TMC) were concerned, the Employment Notice No. 02/2007 provided that the desirous candidates had to be secondary qualified alongwith an ITI in Fitter/Welder/Motor Mechanic/Diesel Mechanic/Electric/Electronic/Instrumentation trade. 7. So far as educational qualifications for the post of Technician-III (TMC) were concerned, the Employment Notice No. 02/2007 provided that the desirous candidates had to be secondary qualified alongwith an ITI in Fitter/Welder/Motor Mechanic/Diesel Mechanic/Electric/Electronic/Instrumentation trade. 7. The candidature of petitioner No. 1 Kishan Lal was rejected for want of educational qualification at the time of making application and also on the ground that he was over age, being 43 years and 7 months old on 1.7.2007. Even after giving relaxation of three years under clause 2.1.1 and clause 2.1.3, petitioner No. 1 was still over age. 8. The candidature of petitioner No. 2 was rejected since he had left the column regarding community and others blank. Thus, the respondents had rejected his application form as per clause 16.1 to 16.14 of the Employment Notice No. 02/2007. 9. The candidature of petitioner No. 3 was also rejected for being incomplete in material particulars as per the instructions provided in clause 16.1, 16.8, 16.9 and 16.10 of the Employment Notice No. 02/2007. Further, his candidature was also rejected for not possessing the minimum educational/technical qualification as also for being overage. After giving a relaxation of three years for undergoing training under the Apprentice Act and also for belonging to the OBC community, petitioner No. 3 was still found to be over-age. 10. Moreover, the petitioners have not challenged the terms and conditions contained in Employment Notice No. 02/2007. Thus, there was no illegality on the part of the respondents as the respondents after scrutinizing the applications, rejected the applications of the petitioners for the reasons aforementioned. 11. In absence of any clear instructions in the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation & Anr. v. U.P. Parivahan Nigam Shishuka Berozgar Sangh & Ors. reported in (1995) 29 ATC 171 , relied upon by the petitioners in relation to ignoring the qualification or the age completely in case of Apprentices, the Tribunal did not accept the claim of the petitioners on the ground that they received the training almost three decades ago. The OA was found to be time barred and since no application was filed seeking condonation of delay, as such the OA was dismissed on the ground of limitation as well as on merits. 12. We are in agreement with the observations made by the CAT in its order dated 10.7.2020. The OA was found to be time barred and since no application was filed seeking condonation of delay, as such the OA was dismissed on the ground of limitation as well as on merits. 12. We are in agreement with the observations made by the CAT in its order dated 10.7.2020. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed. 13. Consequent upon the dismissal of OA, the stay application does not survive and the same also stands dismissed accordingly.