Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 7442
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Mohan Pyare, Member (Administrative), Om Prakash VII, Member (Judicial)
Kiran Rathore – Appellant
Versus
Union of India, through Chairman Railway Board – Respondent
Original Application No. 330/00985/2021
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shri Santosh Kumar Kushwaha, Shri Shams Vikas
For the Respondents: Shri Hari Om Ojha
The court reaffirmed that the withdrawal of a previous employment scheme eliminates vested rights for apprentices seeking engagement, confirming that contractual obligations prevent job claims post-policy amendment.
Headnote:(A) Apprenticeship Act, 1961 - Engagement of Act Apprentices in Group D posts - Applicants completed training under prior policy, but the policy was revoked - Court held that no vested rights exist post-revision of policy and that the applicants cannot claim appointments based solely on apprenticeship completion. (Paras 1-14)
(B) Rights of Apprentices - Notification made it clear that completion of apprenticeship does not create a right to claim job positions in the railway - Contractual obligations reinforced by affidavits negating job claims undermine the applicants' contention. (Paras 10-14)
Facts of the case:
Applicants sought engagement as substitutes in Railway Group D posts post-apprenticeship, supported by earlier circulars that granted such preferences. However, revised policies and applicants' contractual obligations precluded any claims for employment.
Findings of Court:
The applicants were not entitled to relief as they failed to establish a claim under the revised policy and the conditions set forth in the application process. The existing applicants' case differs from previous tribunal decisions, as the RBE No. 34/2017 had withdrawn the applicants' entitlement.
Issues: The court addressed issues surrounding the claim of job rights based on the apprenticeship completion against the backdrop of revised recruitment policies.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the applicants had no vested rights and could not claim employment based on training completion. The principles of administrative fairness and pre-existing policies were upheld against claims of entitlement post-policy revision.
Result: The OA is liable to be dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. employment claims require valid legal standing under current regulations. (Para 2 , 14) |
| 2. training completion does not confer job entitlement. (Para 3 , 5 , 10) |
| 3. applicant claims based on outdated notifications. (Para 4 , 6 , 8) |
| 4. claims for engagement are countered by prior affidavits stating no rights emerge from apprenticeship. (Para 7) |
| 5. court analysis reveals no vested rights according to revised administrative policies. (Para 9) |
| 6. previous provisions do not create rights post-withdrawal. (Para 12 , 13) |
Original Application No. 330/00985/2021 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (Judicial)
Hon’ble Mr. Mohan Pyare, Member (Administrative)
1. Kiran Rathore D/o Ram pal Rathore r/o Mahalau Road no.1 Izzatnagar Bareilly.
2. Deepika Rastogi D/o Santosh Kumar Rastogi R/o Arya Samaj Mandir Air force Gate Izzatnagar Bareilly.
3. Aayushi Jauhari D/o Vinay Kumar R/o 185 Bibizui Chauraha, Anandpuram Colony, Shahjahanpur.
4. Jyoti Lakra D/o Suresh Lakra R/o 67 Krishna Nagar Road no.7 Pratap Singh Memorial School Bareilly.
5. Lalit Sharma S/o Shiv Dayal Sharma R/o 286 Saidupur, Lashkariganj, Mohenpur, Bareilly.
6. Kunal Deep S/o Saiyan R/o M/107/c Railway Hospital Colony, Izzazat Nagar, Bareilly.
7. Abhishek Gill S/o Jasbir Singh Gill R/o 40/16 Shivshakti Nagar, Brahampuri, Meerut city, Meerut.
8. Abhinav Sharma S/o Ram Swaroop Sharma R/o y 47 Shastri Nagar, Izzatnagar, Bareilly.
9. Pramod Kumar S/o Sudarshan Prasad R/o Rahepura Road Reshma Hospital, Basant Bihar, Pphase 2 Bareilly.
10. Mohit Pandey S/o Sanjay Kumar Pandey R/o Prayagdaspur Dham, Gyanpur, Sant Ravidas Nagar.
11. Mohd. Talib S/o Mazrul Hasan, R/o Moh-Beech Thok, Bhargain Mashrak Kasganj.
12. Mayank Sharma S/o Ramsevak Sharma R/o 289, Chahbai, Bareilly.
...….Applicants.
By Advocate : Shri Santosh Kumar Kushwaha Shri Shams Vikas V E R S U S
1. Union of India, through Chairman Railway Board, Rail Bhavan, New Delhi.
2. The Secretary, Railway Board, Rail Bhavan, New Delhi.
3. General Manager, North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur.
4. The Chief Personnel officer, North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur.
....Respondents By Advocate: Shri Hari Om Ojha
O R D E R
By Hon’ble Mr. Mohan Pyare, Member (Administrative):
Shri Shams Vikas, learned counsel for the applicants and Shri Hari Om Ojha, learned counsel for the respondents are present.
2. By means of this OA, the applicants have sought the following reliefs :
“(i) Issue a suitable direction commanding the respondents to engage the applicants as substitutes in Group D posts in Railway establishment.
(ii) Issue any other suitable direction which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case..
(iii) Award the cost of this original application to the applicants.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant Nos. 1 to 8 had applied for apprenticeship in Mechanical/diesel shed North Eastern Railway Izzatnagar, Bareilly in pursuant to the advertisement dated 23.11.2016 issued by responded no.4 and completed Railway Act Apprentice's under the Apprenticeship Act , 1961 from North Eastern Railway and are holding 'National Apprenticeship Certificate's granted by National Council of Vocational Training, Ministry of Skill Development, Government of India. The applicant Nos. 9 to 12 had also applied for apprenticeship in Mechanical/diesel shed North Eastern Railway Izzatnagar, Bareilly in pursuant to the advertisement dated 07.07.2015 issued by responded no.4 and completed the same. The Respondent No. 1 has withdrawn the Circular/Notification dated 21.06.2004 (R.B.E. No.136/2004) on 12.04.2017.
4. Heard the rival submissions.
5. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that Respondent No.1, through various circulars dated 26.08.1996 and 13.07.1999, directed that Course Completed Act Apprentices trained in Railway Establishments be given preference in recruitment to Group „C‟ and „D‟ posts over non-certified candidates. Subsequently, Circular dated 21.06.2004 (R.B.E. No. 136/2004) permitted their engagement as sub
