ORDER
M. Ramachandran, J. (Vice Chairman)
1. Two applicants had joined together to file this O.A. in view of the circumstances that they have similar grievances, presented for examination. The prayer in the application is for directing the respondents, General Manager, Northern Railway, to consider the case of the applicants for appointment either in skilled category of Fitter or even against Group `D’ post, in a similar manner as has been done in case of certain other Act Apprentices, who had been accommodated also, if necessary, by giving age relaxation.
2. Applicants referred to Annexure A-2, which were offers given by the Divisional Railway Manager, to them for undertaking the training of Apprentices under the Apprenticeship Act, 1961. It was stated that this was for a period of one year and they were to commence training on or before 11.11.1994. They claim that apprenticeship was satisfactorily completed.
3. The applicants submit that they had undergone the training of Apprentices after they had passed I.T.I. of Fitter Grade. In the year 2004, they came to know that a few persons, who had undergone the training of Apprentices, after them, had been accommodated as skilled workers. The claim is built on the basis that it was obligatory on the part of the Railway Administration to offer them appointment in priority, they having undergone course of apprenticeship in the Railways earlier, as could be ascertained from the yearwise registers maintained in respect of Apprentices.
4. Counsel had invited our attention to Railway Board’s order dated 03.12.1996, which showed the necessity for maintaining a year to year record of Course Completed Act Apprentices and on the basis of this order, it is pointed out that a person trained earlier was to get preference over persons trained later. The claim is that this stipulation obviously has been violated by preferring the ‘juniors’. Mrs. Mainee had also invited our attention to a Supreme Court judgment in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Anr. v. U.P. Parivahana Nigam Shishukhs Berozgar Sangh 1995 (1) SC SLJ 276. It is submitted that Court had occasion to observe that a person, who had undergone the training of Apprentices earlier have priority when appointments were envisaged, taking notice of the obvious advantages the employer would have gained. The prayers referred to earlier have been agitated in the aforesaid circumstances and the counsel contends that the matter was being represented from time to time, but as a last resort application has come to be filed.
5. Learned Counsel for the respondents, however, submits that on the merits of the case, the claims are misconceived. It is refuted that any such liability is there on the Railways to invite Apprentices, who had received training from the railway workshops while filling up the available posts. In other words, it is submitted that the priority spoken to by the Railway Board’s orders, could have been pressed into service only as between the candidates, who were appearing for selection, and it should not have been possible to prefer a candidate like the applicants by asking him to come over. Thus, the sine qua non was that they should have participated in the selection. There was no claim of the applicants that they had responded to any Notification and were ever rejected without giving them priority. He points out that it could not have been possible to understand, either because of the Railway Board circular or the Supreme Court judgment that a person sitting at home must be invited and offered appointment, as at least a formal application in response to Notification was the minimum requirement.
6. Counsel also submits that the documents maintained by the Administration do not show that the applicants had successfully completed the apprentices course. It was incumbent upon the Apprentices to inform the authorities about the successful completion of the course so that their names could be incorporated in the concerned registers. The totality of the submission, therefore, is that the applicants had not been vigilant about their cause and rights and at this late stage, they could not have come with a grievance that there was discrimination practiced.
7. When the facts had thus been duly presented by the counsel, we have to conclude that the applicants have no enforceable rights whatsoever. No materials have been produced to suggest that there was a duty cast on the Railways Administration to invite the applicants for the only reason that apprenticeship had been offered to them in Railway workshops. The Supreme Court had occasion to hold that a trained apprentice should not be sidelined for the only reason that his name was not registered in the Employment Exchange, as such a restriction would violate his fundamental rights. The usefulness of the trained candidates had been highlighted in that context. We are satisfied that there has been no conduct on the part of the respondents, where they were at fault. The applicants had not been able to establish their claims, and resultantly, we are constrained to dismiss the application. There will be no order as to costs.