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 They filed the OA before the Tribunal, which was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to file a fresh OA. 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