Back
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
MR. AKHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J, MRS. MALLIKA ARYA, ACJ
G. Sandeep Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Secretary Railway Board – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. apprenticeship leads to no automatic employment guarantees. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. similar previous cases informed the current application. (Para 3) |
| 3. tribunal decisions rely on earlier rules applicable at the time of training. (Para 4 , 5) |
ORDER
By Akhil Kumar Srivastava, Member (J).
This Original Application has been filed by the applicants seeking direction to the respondents to engage them as substitutes in Group ‘D’pursuance to completion of apprenticeship training.
2. In their reply, the respondents have stated that there is no provision for employment in Government services after completion of training. The Railway Board has issued RBE No.34/2010 pursuant to amendment to Section 22 Sub-section (1) of the Apprentices Act, 1961 by giving preference to 20% of the vacancies in case of direct recruitment to posts/categories in Pay Band-1 to Course Completed Act Apprentices. Prior to issuance of said RBE, Course Completed Act Apprentices can be engaged as substitutes in Group D only in administrative exigencies and not as a regular measure.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that issue involved in this Original Application has already been considered and decid
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
