Tanakala Venkata Raju vs M/o Defence on 28 December 2018

1.

2. ?

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22. z).

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32. JJ.

34.

35.

36. t NPA W \)

69. NetlaAppala Raju

70. Kotra Satyanarayana Murthy 7 l. Kalavalapalli Narasimham

72. KamakuAppalaRaju

73. Ballanki Sankara Rao

74. Nammi Syam Kumar (Al1 are unemployed) Gurrala Krishna Rao Nandavarapu S atyanarayana Charakapu Venkata Rao Yellapu Appala Ravi Kumar Ishad Ali Jakku Thirupathi Naidu Killi Maheswara Rao Applicants in OA 78312013

J

\

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

43.

44.

45.

46.

47.

48.

49.

50.

51.

52.

53.

54.

55.

56. Muddhu Kanaka Raju Kasa Lova Srinu Peddada Pydi Raju Pakalapati Narayana Varma Malla Raju Surisetti Srinivasa Rao Beela Appala Satyam Siresolla Venkata Satya Bala Murali Krishna Adari Pydi Raju Kandregula Jagan Mohan Rao Pedapudi Soma Raju, Dasari Narasinga Rao Ravada Rama Prasad Tanakala Venkata Raju Marri Ajit Kumar Pulamarasetti Ballu Appa Rao Maddur Satya Sai Srinivasa Rao Boya Pavan Kumar Meesala Satyanarayana

\$

t i- ,o

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

43.

44.

45.

46.

47.

48.

49.

50.

51.

52.

53.

54.

55.

56.

57.

58.

59.

60.

61.

62.

63.

64.

65. a.a Doddi Venkata Naga Satyanarayana Bora Appala Reddy Samminga Durga Siva Prasad Bommi Nookesh Kumar Karanam Nooka Raju Godhe Narasinga Rao Gorthi Vijay Kumar Kakinada Kasulu Potnuru Venkata Ramana MurthY Marisetti Sankara Rao Yellpu W Bhaskara Rao Lenka Varahalu Pentakota Pavan Kumar Kamirunnisa Begum Kondepudi Mohan Rao Palleti Sunil Kumar Keelu Chittibabu Pusarla Laxmi Ravi Kumar Kadiyala Pydi Raju Routu Venkata Narayana Vara Prasad Burle Venkata Ramana Palagara Appala Naidu Cherukuri Srinivas Medapalli Joginaidu Dadi Sanyasi Rao Perla Venkata Surya Sudhakar Potta Srirama MurthY Gomi Matayya Yellabandi Veera Venkata Satya Prasad /aL:6+alo A nnqrqn

& ,'> Nalla Simhachalam Ommi Rambabu Santhathi Venkata Rao Tajuddin Baba Maradana Thirupathi Majji Sri Ramulu Veerzapu Mohan Venkata Subrahmaneyswara Rao Pentakota Jagadeeswara Rao Ramba Appala Naidu Betha Venkata Appa Rao Kare Appala Raju Allavarapu Sateesh Yellapu Ganesh Jonnada Easwara Jagan Mohan Mugada Rama Krishna Kasala Babu Rao Munduru Sree Rama Murthy Ujjuru Srinivasa Rao Suraj Bahadur Veluvarthi Venkata Maruthi Suresh Madisa Raju Adniboyina Pydibabu Petla Rama Krishna Chinnam Ramu Charapaka Ramachandra Rao Polamarasetti Srinivasa Rao Paila Sanyasi Naidu

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32. JJ.

34. /6/ .o l.

2. J.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12. Dunna Gopi Krishna Nidadavolu Dilip Kumar Giduturi Malli Babu Madan Ram Kandregula Krishna Rajeti Chinnayya Pentakota Kanaka Rao Dadla Kiran Kumar Karedla Venkata Laxmana Kumar Inapakolla Raghuram Narava Nagabhushanam Ruttala Venkata Ramana Narava Srinivasa Chandra Sekhar Jogi Appa Rao Bammidi Narasinga Rao Kadavala Ramesh Gujji Appala Raju Salugu Sridhar Nettimi Venkata Uma Maheswara Rao Teela Srinivasa Rao Ambati Ganga Raju Rongala Venkata Ramana Kummara Gopalakrishna Madugula Kasu Babu Pusarla Venkata Ramana Komana Rama Murthy Manda Govinda Rajulu Teki Venkata Raju Latchubothu Sankara Rao Ravada Manikyala Rao Chowdari Varaha Venkata Sai Penki Anil Kumar Seerapu Nooka Raju (All are unemployed) Mamidi Vasudeva Rao Uggina Subhramanyam Kommuru Mahalaxmudu Kodidasu Srinivasa Rao Mohammad Sharief Penmetsa Kanaka Raju Mentreddi Nageswara Rao Marisetti Nageswara Rao Pyla Adinarayana Rongali Chitti Naidu Nemala Srinivasa Govinda Rao Sesetti Suresh Applicants in oA784l13

{

57.

58.

59.

60. 6t.

62.

63.

64.

65.

66.

67.

68.

69.

70.

71.

72.

73.

74.

75.

76.

77.

78.

79.

80.

81.

82.

83.

84.

85.

86.

87.

88.

89.

90. Pennada Narasinga Rao \d

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32. JJ.

34.

35.

36.

31.

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

43.

44.

45.

46.

47.

48.

49.

50.

51.

52.

53.

54.

55.

56.

57.

58.

59.

60.

61. Chintagunti Srinivas Palapala Rambabu Palla Harikrishna Gurram Ramu Kolli Syamsunder Rao Chelluru Govinda Rao Uppada Somireddy Vanumu Kanaka Nagaraju Beesabattuna Syam Kumar Anthani Kiran Kumar Vishnumahanthi FIWR Vij aykumar Malla Modinaidu Moyye Kanaka Raju Maddila Prasad Potnuru Chandra Venkata Narasimham Kothapalli Kumara Swami Vempada Ramakrishna Junjuru Maheswara Rao Yeleti Narasayya Arabe Kirankumar Pala Srinivasa Rao Kosuru Venkata apparao Kamireddi Ramu Gurajapu Veera Bhaskara Chandrasekhar Sridhar Sapireddi Vempali Dineshkumar Darla Srinivasa Rao Pentakota Vasubabu Patta Kanaka Raju Penumathsa Venugopala Raju Ayinada Srinivasa Raju Gummudu Nagaraju Varasala Kirankumar Koragunj i Madhusudhana Rao Marpu Srinivasa Rao Kalagana Venkata Rao Gandem Srirama Murthy Salapu Gurumurthy Nammi Jyothi Prasad Srimanthula Mallikarjuna Rao Dodla Gowri Prasad Dosuru Srinivasa Rao Kontala Venkata Appa Rao Killada Santi Manojkumar Kuram Gopalakrishna Peddada Muralikrishna Chukka M. Sashi Kumar Vanapalli Prasad Aithi Venkata Ramana N

o o

62.

63.

64.

65.

66.

67.

68.

69.

70.

71.

72.

73.

74.

75.

76.

77.

78.

19.

80.

81.

82.

83.

84.

85.

86.

87.

88. Jonnnalagadda Suresh Kumar Kothala Appala raju Kaligotla Paradesi Inti Gurumurthy Pakki Appala Raju Pedapudi Tathibabu Samireddi Veera Venkata Satyanarayana Telugu Prasad Sanaboyini Ravi Kanth Dwaram Chandsekhara Rao Mandapalli Siva Jaggupilli Mohan Dundu Srinivasa Rao Imandi Ganesh, Appa Rao Paladugu Srikanth Imandi Ravi Kumar Pol laimandala Venugopal Boddepalli Syamala Rao Pola Ravi Kumar Medisetti Kondala Rao Thutta Nooka Appa Rao Vankara Raja Babu Bhupathi Satya Prakash Ponna Srinivasa Rao Kundarapu Varaha Nageswara Rao Bandi Suresh Pavada Srinivasa Rao (Al1 the applicants are unemployed) A. Subramanyam Nandigam Kiran Kumar Patnaik P. Gowri Sankara Rao Nalla Simhachalam Lathubothu Sankara Rao Gurrala Krishna Rao Petla Ramakrishna Andiboyina Paidibabu Israpu Srinivasa Rao Md. Habib Nemala Srinivasa Govinda Rao Pentakota Vasubabua Arabe Kiran Kumar Surisetty Srinivasa Rao Santhati Venkata Rao Ganta Subba Rao Gurajapu Veera Bhaskara Chandrasekhar I

J Applicants in oA 78sl13 Applicants in oA92612013

1.

2.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11. t2.

13.

14. \

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20. 2t.

22. zJ.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31. )2.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

43.

44.

45.

46.

47.

48.

49.

50.

51.

52.

53.

54.

55.

56.

57.

58.

59.

60.

61.

62.

63. Chintala Srinivas Illapu Sathibabu Peethala Nooka Raju Killi Maheswara Rao Kodidasu Srinivasa Rao Bandi Suresh Penmesta Kanaka Raju Mentreddi Nageswara Rao Sirusolla VSBM Krishna Dasari Narasinga Rao Nammi Jyothi Prasadu Thutta NookaAppa Rao Madan Ram Kandregula Jaganmohana Rao Chelluru Govinda Rao Vijjuru Srinivasa Rao Mugada Ramakrishna Munduru Srirama Murlhy Chukka M. Sasikumar Mall Srinivas Kadiri Ramu Karri Manga Reddy Uppada Somi Reddy Boora Srinivas Jonnada Eswar Jagan Mohan Ravada Ramprasad Kare Appala Raju Kappala Maheswara Rao Manda Govinda Rajulu Kaligotla Paradesi Jagarapu Atchimi Naidu Madisa Raju Dasari Rajababu Gurram Ramu Vasa Ravikumar Imandi Ganesh Malla Modinaidu Betha VenkataAppa Rao Pakalapati Narayana Varma Salapu Guru Murthy Palla Hari Krishna Teki Venkata Raju Mamidi Vasudeva Rao Ravada Manikyala Rao Marpu Srinivasa Rao Nandavarapu Satyanarayana Gandem Srirama Murthy Pala Srinivasa Rao Madugula Kasubabu B \? N

64.

65.

66.

67.

68.

69.

70.

71.

72. t 5.

74.

75.

76.

77.

78.

79.

80.

81.

82.

83.

84.

85.

86.

87.

88.

89.

90. 9t.

92.

93.

94.

95.

96.

97.

98.

99.

100.

101. t02.

103.

104.

105.

106.

107.

108.

109.

110.

111.

112. Darla Srinivasa Rao Gidithuri Mallibabu Tandranki Gopala Rao Tajuddin Baba Aithi Venkata Ramana Ishad Ali Aynada Srinivasa Raju Majji Sree Ramulu Maddila Prasad Kosuru Venkata Appa Rao Pentakota Kanaka Rao Koraganj i Madhusudhana Rao Karuku Appala Raju Adari Pydi Raju Ambati Ganga Raju Anupoju Satish Kumar Dadla Kirankumar Varada Srinivasa Rao Kolli Syamsundar Rao Nidadavolu Dileep Kumar Parthapu Prasada Rao Seerapu Satyanarayana Reddy Pyla Rambabu Ruttala Rambabu Pentakota Jagadeeswara Rao Veerarapu MV Subramanyeswara Rao Rajeti Chinnayya Koppanti Satish Kumar Vempada Ramakrishna Sanku Krupa Venkata Sarveswara Rao Mangalagiri Madhava Rao Kolli Anantha Kumar Dandu Srinivasa Rao Malla Raju Chintaganti Srinivas Killada Santhi Manoj Kumar Maradana Thirupathi Inti Gurumurthy Kamireddy Ramu Gurram Ramu Ommi Rambabu Ghouse Mohiddin Shariff Pulamarasetti Ballu Appa Rao Pulamarasetti Srinivasa Rao Charapaka Ramachandra Rao Boddepalli Syamala Rao Amjuri Subramanyam Yeleti Sattibabu Pola Ravi Kumar I \

'^ 4N9 t) I 13.

114. Tankala Ramana Narava Srinivasa Chandra Sekhar Tanakala Venkata Raju Chantala Jagadeesh Kumar Chinnam Ramu Veluvarthi Venkata Maruthi Suresh Vempalli Dinesh Kumar Sapireddi Sridhar Kaki Ramana Uggina Subrahmanyam Madduru Satya Sai Srinivasa Rao Charakapu Venkata Rao Muddhu Kanaka Raju Peddada Pydi Raju Dunna Gopikrishna Lakkoju Koteswara Rao Marri Ajit Kumar Beela Appala Satyam Pakki Appala Raju Allavarapu Sateesh Kalagana Venkata Rao Ruttala Venkata Ramana Gujji Appala Raju Kasa Lova Sreenu Suraj Bahadu Yellapu Ganesh Moyye Kanaka Raju Gummudu Naga Raju Chowdhari V. Venkata Sai Nettimi V.Uma Maheswara Rao Varasala Kiran Kumar Palapala Rambabu Gudla Govinda Raju Reddy Marisetty Nageswara Rao Teela Srinivasa Rao Pollai Mandala Venugopal Ramba Appala Naidu Challa Narayana Murthy Kommur Mahalakshmudu Kani Suryanarayana Murthy Palla Hari Krishna Konathala Venkata Appa Rao

1.

2. J.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10. ll.

12.

13. t4.

15.

16. t7.

18.

19.

20. 2t.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32. JJ.

34.

35.

36. Applicants in oA 83/13 Applicants in oAt454n2 Applicants in oA84n3

J

AND

u

f l. The Union of India. represented by its Secretary Ministry of Defence, South Block, NewDelhi 110 011. The Chief of Naval Staff, Integrated Headquarters of Ministry of Defence (l'iary), NewDelhi 110 011. The Flag Offi cer Commanding-in-Chief, Headquarters, Eastem Naval Command, Visakhapatnam - 14. The Admiral Superintendent, Naval Dockyard, Msakhapatnam -14.

)

Respondents in all the above OAs. Counsel for the aPPlicants Counsel for the resPondents : Dr. P.B. VijaY Kumar Mr. G. Jayaprakash Babu, Sr. CGSC OA Nos. 78211'3, 7 83 I 13,7 84 I 13,7 8 5 I 13,9261 13, 831t3 & l454l12 Mr. M. Brahma ReddY OANo.84/13 CO AM: TIIE HON'BLE MR. B.VENTA*TESWARA RAO' MEMBER (r) THE HON'BLE MRS. MINNIE MATHEW, MEMBER (A) ***

ORDER

(PER HON'BLE MR. B. VENIsA-TESWARA RAO, MEMBER (O) As all the applicants in the above mentioned OAs are having common cause of action they are being heard together and a common order is being Passed'

), \

t ffi J J

2. Present applications are filed by the applicants assailing the action of the respondents in applying ,,lntegrated Headquarters Ministry of Defence (Navy) Group 'C, lndustrial Posts (Tradesmen) Recruitment Rules, 2012,, SRO 43 to the posts adveftised under notification published in Employment News dated 20-26th April,2013 instead of Navy Group 'C'& ,D, lndustrial Posts (Tradesmen and Labourers) Recruitment Rules 2000(SRO-150)as interpreted by the decision dated 1.3.2010 in OA 51/2008 & batch since all the eligible persons including the applicants have been ignored and good number of vacancies were filled in contravention of the Rules of 2000. The case of the applicants are that they are apprentices trained at Dockyard Apprentice Schoo Visakhapatnam in various trades such as Fitter, Plumber, Welder, Machinist, Blacksmith and Millright between 1990 to 2004 and they are entitled to be absorbed into Naval service in terms of SRO 150 dated 1-6-2000 wherein no upper age limit is prescribed for absorption. The Naval Dockyard, Visakhapatnam had issued two notifications in December 2007 and February 2009 prescribing upper age limit. Questioning such an imposition of age restriction as contrary to SRO 150 batch of cases have been filed before this Tribunal and this Tribunal vide its order dated 1-3-2010 in OA S1I20OB held that rules do not authorise prescription of such an upper age restriction and k\

u directed to consider ca those applicants. That order was challenged before the Hon'ble High Court of in WP 312OOl 2010 and batch and since the Hon'ble High Court refused to grant stay the order of the Tribunal were implemented by absorbing 118 persons. Later two more notifications have been given and the upper age limit was not acted upon and around 150 persons were absorbed. However, in the fresh notification issued during 2010 and 2011 no age restriction was notified for absorption of Ex-Naval apprentices as per the Recruitment Rules of SRO-150. Accordingly applicants applied along with others and qualified in the suitability test and some of them got absorbed against the vacancies. Some of the applicants herein have been waiting for absorption as they could not apply against the initial notification because of the condition imposed therein. It is the contention of the applicants that the authorities have absorbed the apprentices without following any seniority and the juniors were absorbed. Aggrieved by this applicants represented to the authorities for their absorption, but in vain. Some of the applicants herein have filed OA Nos. 670, 671,707,759,862, 971 to 98112011and OA 66/12. After filing the above OAs the 1't respondent issued "lntegrated Headquarters Ministry of Defence (Navy) Group 'C' lndustrial Posts (Tradesmen) Recruitment Rules,2012" SRO 43 wherein the absorption of ex-naval apprentices is removed and age limit is incorporated. lt is the contention of the applicants that this will adversely affect them. t3 \\

While the matter stood thus the respondents issued another advefiisement in Employment News dated 20-26th April, 2013 whereunder 764 posts have been advertised including those vacancies available prior to promulgation of "lntegrated Headquarters Ministry of Defence (Navy) Group 'C' lndustrial Posts (Tradesmen) Recruitment Rules 2012"SRO 43. Applying the above 2012 Rule (SRO 43) instead of "Navy Group 'C' &'D' lndustrial Posts (Tradesmen and Labourers) Recruitment Rules dated 1.3.2010 in OA 5'112008 & batch is arbitrary, illegal and

5. Applicants submit that they are similarly situated and similarly situated persons have to be extended all the benefits that are extended in terms of the orders of the CAT instead of again driving the applicants to the legal forum. Prior to the decision of the CAT as mentioned supra the respondents have overlooked the claims of the applicants and recruited around 440 persons in contravention of the Rules of 2000. Though the applicants have submitted representations no reply has been given by the respondents. Hence they approached this Tribunal praying the following relief : "To declare the lntegrated Headquarters Ministry of Defence (Navy) Group 'C' lndustrial Posts (Tradesmen) Recruitment Rules,2012 fixing age limit for trade apprentices of

2000 (SRO - 150) as interpreted by the Tribunal by its decision violative of Article 14 and 2'1 of the Constitution of lndia. \

.4, 4o s- 6, o ffi Naval Dockyard Apprentices School and deleting absorption of the ex-naval apprentices insofar as the Post of "Tradesmen Skilled"is not applicable to the posts advertised under notification published in Employment News dated 20-26th April,2013 and that they are governed by Navy GrouP "C' & 'D' lndustrial Posts (Tradesmen and Labourers) Recruitment Rules 2000 (SRO-150) as interPreted bY the decision dated '1.3.2010, in OA 51l2OO8 & batch on the file of Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad and accordingly direct the respondents to fill up these available uPto promulgation of the lntegrated Headquarters Ministry of Defence (Navy) Group 'C' lndustrial Posts (Tradesmen) Recruitment Rules,2012 in terms of Navy GrouP 'C'& 'D' lndustrial Posts (Tradesmen and Labourers) Recruitment Rules 2000 (SRO-150) as interPreted bY the decision dated 1.3.20'10 in OA 51/2008 & batch on the file of Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad and also make good the posts filled in past in violation of the above SRO 150 by absorbing all the eligible applicants with all consequential and attendant benefits."

6. On24.06.2013 when the OAs came up for admission hearing this Tribunal held that "in case any examination is held for conducting the selection, the applicants can come fonrard with the MA." Accordingly applicants have filed MA 73114 in OA 782113, MA74114 in OA 783/13, MA 75114 in OA 784113, MA 76114 in OA 785/13 and MA 104114 in OA 926/13'

\ N

o\No -,+l

Respondents have contested the application by filing a reply. They have also filed reply to MA for which applicants have filed a rejoinder. It is the contention of the respondents that in accordance with the Apprentices Act, 1961 the Naval Dockyard, Visakhapatnam is required to impart apprentice training in the determined by the survey undertaken by Regional Director of Apprentice Training (RDAT), Hyderabad and has no linkage to the number of vacancies in Naval Dockyard, Visakhapatnam. Apprentices selected for apprentice training are required to sign a contract of apprenticeship training with Naval Dockyard, Visakhapatnam and para4 of enclosure to the contract of apprenticeship training specifies the clause for no obligation on the part of the employer to offer any employment as specified in the Apprentices Act, 1 961. Applicants in the present OAs have undergone apprenticeship training at Naval Dockyard, Visakhapatnam during various years. Although the establishment has no obligation to offer employment to these ex-DAS apprentices sometimes they may offer employment to these personnel in accordance with such Recruitment Rules that the Union of lndia may promulgate from time to time. Prior to May 2012, lhe o \ t6 designated trades. The number of personnel to be trained is I Recruitment Rules as d SRO 150/2000, as amended vide SRO 26212002 were in force. The said SRO provided for filling up of 60% of the vacancies by absorption of the Ex-DAS apprentices. As long as the said SRO was in force, various notifications for absorptions of Ex-DAS apprentices have been issued and accordingly qualified Ex-DAS apprentices have been absorbed. Applicants also had a fair opportunity to participate in these absorption process. The revised recruitment rules for the recruitment of the Tradesman have been promulgated by the Government of lndia vide SRO 4312012 dated 18-05-2012. As against 60% of the vacancies to be filled up by absorption from ex-DAS apprentices the revised recruitment rules now specify 60% of the vacancies to be filled up from amongst all the candidates holding the National Apprenticeship Certificate (NAC) issued by the National Council for Vocational Training (NCVT) (which all the ex-DAS apprentices also acquire on successful competition of the training). The balance 40o/o vacancies are to be filled up by promotion. The revised recruitment rules also specify an uniform age limit for recruitment of Tradesman into the Dockyard whether they are Ex-DAS apprentices or other general candidates' The revised recruitment rules therefore require selection to be made from amongst a larger pool of candidates of which all ex-DAS apprentices could also apply subject to their eligibility. Therefore the contention of the applicants that the pool of candidates from

\{

:i amongst which 60% of the vacancies are to be filled up should not be enlarged and that should be restricted to only ex_DAS apprentices cannot be agreed to. The contention of the applicants that no age limit should be specified for employment from amongst the ex-DAS apprentices also cannot be acceded to. Although certain preference for absorption of ex_DAS apprentices was provided under SRO 150/2000 applicants have no right to claim that such preference should be provided till eternity when in the first place the Dockyard has no obligation to provide any employment to the applicants.

10. Regarding the contention of the applicants that the vacancies advertised vide notification in the Employment News dated 20-26 April,2013 is for the period when SRO 150/2000 was in force therefore the respondents have erred in progressing the recruitment under the new SRO 43/2012, the respondents have contended that the revised recruitment rules came into effect from the date of publication ie 18-05-2012 and is applicable for all recruitment progressed thereafter. Recruitment is to be progressed on the basis of the SRO applicable at the time of recruitment and not on the basis of SRO at the time of occurrence of vacancy and the notification in the Employment News dated 20 -26th April,2013 is for filling up vacancies for the year 2013-14. Therefore the contention of the applicants that the recruitment ought to have been progressed t8 ffi \)

under SRO 150/2000 an ot under SRO 43/2012 is not tenable.

11. Respondents contended that two notifications for recruitment were issued in 2007 and 2009 for absorption of ex- DAS apprentices under the then prevailing SRO 150/2000 specifying the age limit. Specifying the age limit was found not appropriate by the CAT vide its order in OA 51/2008 and batch accordingly corrective measures have been taken. 118 applicants of those who approached the Tribunal in OA 51/2008 and batch were found eligible and suitable were absorbed as directed by the CAT. Further recruitments in 2010 and 2011 were undertaken without age limit. SRO 4312012 has been promulgated on 18-05-2012 which is supersession of SRO 150/2OOO and it came into force from the day it is promulgated viz 18-05-2012. The current recruitment has been advertised vide notiflcation in the Employment News dated 20 -26th April, 2013 when SRO 43/20'12 is in force. Therefore there is no case for the applicants to claim that these vacancies should have been advertised under SRO 150/2000 which has been superseded.

12. ln view of the above submissions the respondents have submitted that the reliefs sought by the applicants may not \) be granted.

ffi

ffi ,..> Applicants have filed rejoinder reiterating their claim

13. and opposed the contention of the respondents.

14. Heard both parties.

15. Dr. PB. Vijayakumar, learned counsel appearing for the applicants mainly taken the ground that the lntegrated Headquarters Ministry of Defence (Navy) Group "C' lndustrial posts (Tradesmen) Recruitment Rules, 2012, have no application to the vacancies of Pre 2012 period since they are liable to be filled with those Rules in existence. Because of the new rules the vested rights accrued to the applicants would be frustrated by fixing age limit for trade apprentices of Naval Dockyard Apprentices School and deleting absorption of the ex- naval apprentices in so far as the post of Tradesmen Skilled is concerned as arbitrary, discriminatory, illegal and violative of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia. He further argued that applicants vested rights of getting absorbed on par with their juniors and similarly placed persons is frustrated on account of these Rules and the ex-naval apprentices who are waiting for absorption will be put to disadvantageous position. He also submitted that the applicant cannot seek employment outside the dockyard when they were trained as apprentices in Naval Dockyard and the very purpose of extending apprenticeship training to them by the Navy, is frustrated and their rights are jeopardised and theory of legitimate expectation also fails

\ry

16. Per contra Mr. yaprakash Babu, Sr. CGSC vehementally argued and he opposed the contentions and grounds of the applicants. He argued that the contention of the applicants is not supported by the Recruitment Rule SRO 4312012. The introductory para of the Rule says that the said rules are framed in supersession of Recruitment Rules 2000 and para 1(2) ol the said recruitment rule states that the said rules shall come into force from the date of their publication in the official gazette ie on 09-06-2012. The said recruitment rules are statutory in nature in that they have been framed in exercise of the powers conferred by the provision of the Article 309 of the Constitution. The question of undertaking recruitment in accordance with the superseded SRO 150/2000 does not arise after the publication of revised rules under SRO 4312012 with effect from 09-06-2012. He further contends that the respondent department has no obligation to provide employment to the ex- apprentices. The vested right to the employment is therefore not in order. He further argued that all the applicants in this OA belong to the designated trades under the Apprentice Act, 196'1and Apprentices rule, 1992. The have undergone Apprentice training ND(V) in accordance with the syllabus laid down by Director General of Employment and Training of the Government of lndia in order to enable them to earn the National Apprenticeship Certificate (NAC) awarded by the National Council for Vocational Training of the Government of \ 2l

ffi J lndia. The said certification enables them to seek employment to a suitable post in any organisation for which National Apprenticeship Certificate is an eligible criteria. Hence, there is no case for the applicants to claim that their training in DAS(V) only prepared them for a job in ND(V) and that they cannot seek employment outside Dockyard. He further prayed to dismiss the OA with costs.

17. Having considered the submissions of both the parties and after perusal of material on record the only issue to decide in these OAs is whether the respondents are justified in advertising the vacancies (Tradesman Skilled) in Employment News dated 20-26 April, 2013 under SRO 43/2012 instead of sRo 150/2000 ?

18. Dr. PB. Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the applicants has relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of U.P State Road Transport Corporation and another vs. U.P. Parivahan Nigam Shishukhs wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court while deciding an issue in respect of rights of apprentices for employment observed as under: "9. We have said so far as reference to that Circular shows that all it has done is to lay down the procedure for the selection of the apprentices, which did not require the apprentices to undergo any written examination for selection W

Berozgar Sangh and Ors. reported in AIR 1995 SC 1115

rll "z and their routing through em t exchange was done away

10. For a promise to be enforceable, the same has, however, to be clear and unequivocal. We do not read any such promise in the aforesaid three documents and we, therefore, hold that at the call of promissory estoppel, the direction in question could not have been given by the High Court. But then, we are left in no doubt that the Government of lndia did desire that preference should be given to the trained apprentices and it is because of this that the State Government stated in its letter No. 735/38-6-16(T)-79 dtd. 12.11 .79 that where such apprentices are available, direct recruitment should not be made. lndeed, the Government of lndia in its letter dated 23.3.1983 even desired reservation of 50 per cent vacancies for apprentice trainees.

11. The aforesaid being the position, it would not be just and proper to go merely by what has been stated in Section 22

(1) of the Act, or for that, matter in the model contract form. What is indeed required is to see that the nation gets the benefit of time, money and energy spent on the trainees, which would be so when they are employed in preference to non-trained direct recruits. This would also meet the legitimate expectations of the trainees.

12. ln the background of what has been noted above, we state that the following would be kept in mind while dealing with the claim of trainees to get employment after successful completion of their training :-

(1) Other things being equal, a trained apprentice should be given preference over direct recruits.

with. Something was said about the age also. No promise of employment can be read in this Circular which is of 21"1 December, 1977. \Ne would say the same about the Memo of the Directorate of Training and Employment of the State of U.P. Dated 21"t September, 1977 as it falls short of any promise of employment, because what it says is that full efforts should be mad to provide the trainees with service. ln this memo what had been stated in para 2 of the Government of lndia's letter dated 31-8-1978 had been quoted in which it was mentioned that the scheme of training had been introduced to promote chances of employment of educated employed persons; and that if employers would not provide employment to the qualified apprentices the same would amount to destruction of developed human resources. lt is because of this that the government of lndia expressed the desire that "other things being equal trained apprentices should be given preference in case of employment.". \\)

o

(2) For this, a trainee would not be required to get his name sponsored by any employment exchange. The decision of this Court in Union of lndia v. Hargopat, AtR 1987 SC 1221, would permit this.

(3) lf age bar would come in the way of the trainee, the same would be relaxed in accordance with what is stated in this regard, if any, in the concerned service rule. lf the service rule be silent on this aspect, relaxation to the extent of the period for which the apprentice had undergone training would be given.

(4) The concerned training institute would maintain a list of the persons trained year wise. The persons trained earlier would be treated as senior to the persons trained later. ln between the trained apprentices, preference shall be given to those who are senior.

19. Similarly this Tribunal while deciding the issue in respect of fixation of upper age limit contrary to SRO 150/2000 in OA No. 51l20OB and batch (decided on 01-03-2010) observed "Therefore in cases where the respondents could not absorb the apprentices of previous years purely for want of vacancies, such apprentices cannot be deprived of consideration for absorption while considering their juniors for absorption. It is not as if ex-naval apprentices are claiming absorption straightaway as of right. Admittedly, there is a written test prescribed for selection. Only those who get through in the competitive examination alone get a chance for absorption. Therefore, merely because apprentices have completed their training long back, it cannot be presumed that they are not fit for consideration for absorption. As admittedly, the method of filling up tradesmen (skilled) post is by way of selection-cum-seniority,the respondents have got an opportunity to test their skills before absorbing them. As the trade test is being

-l ( as under . \t

e. conducted, o have lost their skills aftei the training may not get through in the examination. lt is not a case of the respondents that those who are aged more than 25 or 30 years are not fit to do the job of tradesmen (skilled). ln fact, the recruitment rules provide no age limit for promotees and even in the case of direct recruitment, relaxation is given upto 40 years for the government servants. Under such circumstances, there is no rationale behind fixing the upper age limit for ex-naval apprentices who could not be absorbed immediately after their training for want of vacancies. Those who completed+ apprenticeship training in the earlier years must have gained some practical experience also outside and became more skilled than the recent batches of naval apprentices. ln the trade test, there is every likelihood of their exhibiting highest skills by such apprentices than the recently trained apprentices. Therefore, it is beneficial for the respondents also to have wider choice of selecting the best skilled for the tradesman(skilled) post from among the ex-naval apprentices. Thus by depriving the ex-naval apprentices who crossed upper age limit, to compete in the trade test, the department will be losing an opportunity to select the best skilled among those who have been trained in the apprentice schools. There may be some apprentices who secured very good marks in the earlier examinations at the time of completion of apprenticeship training, but could not be absorbed for want of vacancies. lf upper age- limit is prescribed, the department loses an opportunity to make use of the services of such highly skilled ex-naval apprentices. The other justification prescribed for fixing upper age limit given by the respondents is that the selection of candidates has to be done \tuj

.) u ffi UI J

by the process of elimination as they received about 1300 applications in response to the advertisement for the limited number of vacancies of tradesman. As seen from the impugned notification, the vacancies notified are 403. Selection of 403 from out of 1300 by way of conducting competitive examination cannot be said to be a difficult task warranting adoption of the process of elimination. Even otherwise, it is not a sound reason for prescribing the upper age limit. The department's interests are also to be taken into consideration. The department cannot afford to loose the opportunity of selecting best among the ex-naval apprentices who have undergone training in their own schools. Therefore, in our considered view, there is no rationale or reasonableness in fixing the upper age limit for ex-naval apprentices in a selection exclusively meant for ex- naval apprentices in the absence of prescription of age limit in the recruitment rules. Non-mentioning of upper age limit for absorption of ex- naval apprentices in the recruitment rules cannot be made use of to deprive ex-naval apprentices by prescribing upper age limlt of their choice by the respondents by way of executive instructions. Recruitment is to be made in accordance with recruitment rules. Prescribing age limit for ex-naval apprentices who could not be absorbed for want of vacancies is contrary to the recruitment rules contained in SRO 150/2000. The Ernakulam Bench of this Tribunal in OAs 94l2OO3 and 653/2003 dated 16.2.2004 categorically held that ex- naval apprentices cannot be deprived of consideration for absorption on the ground that they crossed the upper age limit prescribed in the notification. The said order has become final and in pursuance of the said decision, the other Naval Commands absorbed ffi o\ 6" o () several ex-n apprentices irrespectirt: of their age but based on their merit. lt is not disputed that all the three naval commands come under the Ministry of Defence and are governed by same recruitment rules. Therefore, there shall be uniformity in the case of absorption of the ex-naval apprentices. But the Eastern Naval Command, Visakhapatnam adopted its own procedure prescribing upper age limit for no sound reasons. Hence, we have no hesitation to hold that the upper age limit prescribed in the impugned notification is not sustainable in law and that all the applicants in these cases shall be considered for absorPtion in accordance with the marks obtained in the competitive examination held exclusively for ex-naval apprentices without disqualifying them on the ground of age. Thus, these points are found accordingly. ln the result, all these applications are allowed setting aside the condition fixing upper age limit in the impugned notification and also directing the respondents to consider absorption of these applicants if they are otherwise eligible irrespective of their crossing the uPPer age limit prescribed in the imPugned notification. The order shall be complied with within two months. There shall be no order as to costs."

20. The applicants have taken the main ground that the lntegrated Headquarters Ministry of Defence (Navy) Group 'C' lndustrial Posts (Tradesmen) Recruitment Rules, 2012 have no application to the vacancies occurred prior to 2012 and the respondents ought to have filled up the vacancies as per SRO 150/2OOO. Admittedly the respondents have not denied the same

V

21. After giving a careful consideration to the submissions of both the counsels and in view of the factual position we are of the considered view that the vacancies (Tradesman) advertised under the notification published tn Employment News dated 20-26 April,2013 are occurred prior to the year 2012. ln a similar circumstance this Tribunal while disposing of OA Nos. 120412013 and batch (decided on 14-03- 2014)observed as under : "13. ln view of the above discussion, it is clear that the notifications for the years 2011(1'1-17 June 2011) and 2012 (Emp. News dated 17-23 March,2012) for absorption of Ex- Naval Apprentices is based on the earlier SRO '150/2000 but not based on revised SRO 43/2012 and as such the applicants are entitled for extension of the benefit granted to the applicants in the disposed OA67112011dated 19.06.2013 in respect of fixing of upper age limit. Accordingly, the OA is allowed by setting aside the condition, if any, fixed the upper age limit for recruitment of the applicants as Ex-Naval Apprentices, if they are othenrvise eligible for selection vide notification for the years 2011 and 2012 only. But in view of revision of recruitment rules vide SRO 4312012 dated 18.05.2012, we are not inclined to grant further relief to consider the absorption of the applicants in the future vacancies.

14. ln the result, the OA is partly allowed by setting aside the condition fixing upper age limit for recruitment of the applicants as Ex-Naval Apprentices for their selection vide notification for the years 2011 (11-17, June 2011) and 2012 (Emp. News daled 17-23, March, 2012) in respect of their respective notified trades. No order as to costs." For the foregoing reasons and discussions made above and in view of the facts and circumstances of the case we hold the action on the part of the respondents in filling up of the vacancies (Tradesman) published in Employment News dated h-'

22. ffi D. 4' grated Headquarters Ministry of Defence (Navy) Group "C' lndustrial posts (Tradesmen) Recruitment Rules, 2012 (SRO 43) as illegat, arbitrary and contrary to the rbcruitment rules on the date of the vacancies, since the vacancies which are notified / published in the Employment News dated 20-26th Apri, 2013 are pre-2012. Accordingly, we direct the respondents to fill up the vacancies which are occurred prior to 2012 published in the Employment News dated 20-26th April,2013 by following the lntegrated Headquarters Ministry of Defence (Navy) Group 'C' lndustrial Posts (Tradesmen) Recruitment Rules, 2000 (SRO-150) as interpreted by the decision dated 1 .3.2OlO in OA No. SltzOOg and batch on the file of this Bench, if they are othenrvise eligible.

23. ln result the OAs are disposed of with the above direction. Accordingly, MA 73t14, 14t14, 75t14, 16t14 & 104t14 stands closed. r.noET llfd CERIIFIEO TRUE COPI 5( lFI .J(\t--^ t,-t - cAsf. Nt,/lBER..Qll:../.>...kt * ffifrffir, ,r-(.r..Azrl7 lAcr*I sftr *{ra ftrn rq' C0PY[t&{D€R[r': 'r {)t WonGlf:r.. lY--.sl.r .-,l-t.,l il*tlrt rrft-{Etaot Cental Admr nt!frEihe THboilal tftEr art.tqfiydr'ebad gon* "Frce CoPY UIR 22 ot CAT (Procedwc) Rulell I 20-26th April, 2013 as eo*.U Ce;.A