The main legal point established in the judgment is the limited scope of judicial review of administrative action, the importance of the decision-making process, and the need for the decision to be reasonable and not manifestly arbitrary. The judgment also highlighted the applicability of the Child Labour (Prohibition & Regulation) Act, 1986, and the consequences of engaging minors in contravention of the Act.

JUDGMENT

Ajai Lamba, C.J. - This judgment shall dispose of 2(two) writ petitions, namely, WP(C) No.2044/2017 (Union of India, represented by General Manager, Northeast Frontier Railway, Maligaon, Guwahati & 3 other functionaries of the said establishment -Vs- Ashim Bora, Kartick Chandra Dey, Prema Kanta Hazarika and Secretary, N.F. Railway Employee''s Consumer Co-operative Society Limited) and WP(C) No.1140/2018 (Debajit Hazarika, Bimal Saikia, Gayan Chandra Bora & Jyoti Prasad Baruah -Vs- Union of India, represented by General Manager, Northeast Frontier Railway, Maligaon, Guwahati & 4 other functionaries of the Railways).

wxyz

Both the petitions are directed against common order dated 10.08.2016 rendered by Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench while dealing with O.A. No.040/00265/2014 (Ashim Bora & 7 Ors. -Vs- Union of India, through General Manager, Northeast Frontier Railway, Maligaon & 4 Ors.).

zyxw

wxyz

For reference to record, we are referring to the pleadings in WP(C) No.2044/2017 (supra).

zyxw

wxyz

In WP(C) No.2044/2017, Railways is represented by Mr. H.K. Das, Advocate.

zyxw

wxyz

In WP(C) No.1140/2018, Railways is represented by Mr. B. Sharma, Advocate.

zyxw

2. The claim of all the original applicants was common. All the original applicants were aggrieved by action of Northeast Frontier Railway in not absorbing the applicants in Group-D posts of Railways, hence, a common application was filed by 8(eight) persons.

wxyz

The case of Ashim Bora, Kartick Chandra Dey and Prema Kanta Hazarika [respondents in WP(C) No.2044/2017] was found to be different and, therefore, Original Application filed on their behalf was allowed in limited terms vide the impugned order.

zyxw

wxyz

So far as claim of writ petitioners, 4(four) in number, of WP(C) No.1140/2018 is concerned, their claim has been rejected vide the impugned order.

zyxw

3. We shall, at the first instance, deal with WP(C) No.2044/2017. A reference to common documents is required, therefore, reference is being made to the documents in extenso.

4. It appears that the original applicants, 8(eight) in number, pleaded that they were engaged vide the different letters of engagement/appointment by Secretary, Railway Employees'' Consumer Co-operative Society, Chaparmukh, for selling rice, sugar, kerosene oil, mustard oil, atta, masoor dal, etc. The Ministry of Railways has been issuing Circulars from time to time for absorption of employees serving Railway Employees'' Consumer Co-operative Society also, popularly known as serving in staff working in quasi administrative offices or organisations connected with the Railways.

5. Learned counsel for the Railways, namely, Mr. H.K. Das, has drawn attention of the Court towards Circular dated 11.06.1997 to contend that it was decided by the Railway Board, in supersession of letter dated 26.08.1977 that staff working in quasi administrative offices or organizations connected with Railways shall henceforth have to compete along with other eligible candidates for recruitment to the Railway service as and when Notification for recruitment to posts suiting their qualification, etc., are issued.

6. It has been pointed out that a demand was raised by recognized staff federations for amendment of the conditions and, therefore, Railway Circular dated 30.05.2000 was issued with the condition that as a one-time relaxation, the Railways may consider absorption of only those staff of quasi administrative offices/ organizations, who were on roll continuously for a period of at least 3(three) years as on 10.06.1997, and are still on roll, subject to fulfilment of prescribed educational qualification required for recruitment to Group-D posts.

7. Mr. H.K. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner/Railways has further stated that vide the Circular dated 03.05.2006, on reconsideration of the matter, it was decided that the Railways may consider absorption of that staff of quasi administrative office/organisation, who were on roll as on 10.06.1997, and are sti