Holding

Trade apprentices have no statutory right to appointment; the Railway's policy and cancellation are reasonable and do not violate Articles 14 or 16.

Summary

Five trade apprentices of the North Eastern Railway, who completed their apprenticeship as fitters under the Apprentices Act, 1961, were initially appointed as temporary Fitters (Group C) on 28 May 1990. On 7 June 1990, the Railway cancelled these appointments and placed them in Group D posts (Carriage Khalasi) based on a policy decision that apprentices would be absorbed only in Group D to maintain industrial peace. The appellants challenged the cancellation, alleging a statutory right to appointment under the Apprentices Act and a violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court held that Section 22 of the Apprentices Act does not obligate the employer to offer employment to apprentices, and Rule 159 merely allows consideration for selection, not a guaranteed right. The policy decision was deemed reasonable, non‑arbitrary, and not discriminatory, and the termination on 11‑day notice or pay in lieu was lawful. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether trade apprentices have a statutory right to appointment under the Apprentices Act, 1961 after completing training.
Whether the cancellation of the Group C appointments violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
Whether the Railway's policy of absorbing apprentices only in Group D posts is arbitrary or discriminatory.
Whether the appellants are entitled to more than 11 days' notice or pay in lieu of notice upon termination.

Legislation cited

Apprentices Act, 1961s. 22
Constitution of Indias. 14, s. 16

Subjects

ApprenticeshipAppointmentService LawArticles 14Articles 16DiscriminationIndustrial peaceTemporary appointmentNotice periodRailwayRule 159Group CGroup D

Judgment

MITRANGSHU ROY CHOUDHARY AND ORS. A
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

APRIL 15, 1999

[S.S. MOHAMMED QUADRI AND S.N. PHUKAN, JJ.] B

Service Law :

Railways : Rules for Recruitment and Training of Group C and Group
D Staff, Rule 159-Held : Trade Apprentices have no right to be appointed.
I
·C
However Railways may consider their cases for selection.

Policy decision-no direct entry to Group C Post-All vacant posts to
be filled up by promotion from Group D Post to Accommodate surplus staff
due_ to closure to unit-Policy decision held reasonable to keep industrial
peace-Not arbitrary or discriminatory. D
Temporary appointment-Termination of service-Notice or pay in lieu
of notice period-Not violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.-

Apprentices Act, 1961. Section 22-Trainees successfully completed
training as Fitters-Claim to get employment-Held : Trade Apprentices E
have no right to be appointed under the Act.

Constitution of India-Articles 14 and 16-Trade Apprentices selected
under Apprentices Act, 1961-Jnterviewed, selected and appointed as Fitter
Grade III-Appointment cancelled in view ofPolicy decision-Later appointed F
·- -
alternatively as Carriage Khalasi in Group D. category-Action by Railways
I' -

held not arbitrary, discriminatory or violative of Articles 14 and 16.-Service
Law.

The appellants were sponsored along with others by the Employment
Exchange for recruitment as Trade Apprentices in Carriage and Wagon G
department ofN.F. Railway. They were selected as Trade Apprentices under
Apprentices Act, 1961. On successful completion of training they were
interviewed, selected and appointed against 25% vacancies earmarked for
them under Rule 159 of the Rules of Recruitment and Training, as Fitter
Grade III, purely on temporary basis and their services could be terminated
by giving 11 days notice or pay in lieu thereof. On 7-6-1990 their appointments H
683
684 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1999] 2 S.C.R.

A were cancelled. They were, however, appointed to the posfofCarriage Khalasi,
a Group D Post. Their administrative appeal having been rejected they
approached the Administrative Tribunal for relief. The Tribunal also rejected
their claim to appointment in Group C post. ,

In appeal to this Court it was contended among other grounds that they
B were Trade Apprentices under Apprentices Act, 1961 and having successfully
completed the training as Fitter, they had a right to be selected and having
been selected for appointment for the post, the cancellation was in violation
of the Act.

Dismissing the appeal, this Court
c
HELD : 1. As there was no guarantee or promise for employment while
sending the appellants to undergo apprenticeship course, the appellants did
not have the right to the appointed under the Apprentices Act, 1961 in view
of the specific legal provision under Section 22 of the Act. [687-E-F]

D 2. Rule 159 of the Rules for Recruitment and Training of Group C and
Group D and Workshop Staff provided that 25% of the posts are to be filled
from course completed "Act Apprentices" like the appellants. Railways may
consider their cases for selection which was done in the present case. The
appellants and similarly situated persons cannot claim appointment as a
E matter of right for this post. [687-F-G]

3. Appointment letters to all the appellants were issued on 28.5.1990
and by letter dated 7.6.1990 i.e. less than one month, the appellants were
informed that in view of the policy decision at the Headquarters level it was
decided that the course completed Apprentices were to be absorbed only in
F Group D category and therefore, the earlier letter of appointment was
cancelled and the appellants were given fresh appointments in Group D
posts. In view of the nature of appointment it cannot be said to be violative
of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, and at best the appellants would
be entitled to get 11 days notice or pay in lieu thereof. [688-B-C]

G 4. The policy decision pursuant to the discussion between the
Administration and the Railway Unions that there would be no direct entry
to Group C post was a reasonable one and it was taken to keep industrial
peace. [688-FJ

CIVIL AP PELLA TE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3210 of
H 1996.
MITRANUSHU ROY CHOUDHARYv. U.0.1. & ORS. [S.N. PHUKAN, J.] 685
From the Judgment and Order dated 13.2.95 of the Central Administrative A
Tribunal, at Guwahati in O.A. No. 23of1991.

Shahid Rizvi for Ms. Pratibha Jain for the Appellants.

Ms. Rekha Pandey for V.K. Verma for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
B

S.N. PHUKAN, J. The present appeal is directed against the order of
the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench in Original Application
No.23of1991. By the impugned judgment the Tribunal rejected the Original
Application of the appellants for appointment to Group C posts instead of C
Group D posts under Divisional Railway Manager, Lumding, Assam. We may
state here that earlier Group C post was designated as Class III Post and
Group D as Class IV post.

The facts of the case are as follows :-
D
All the five appellants were sponsored by the Employment Exchange for
recruitment of Trade Apprentices in Carriage & Wagon Department of N.F.
Railway in Lumding Division along with others. They were selected as Trade
Apprentices under Apprentice Act, 1961 and successfully completed training
in System Technical School, New Bonagaigaon under the N.F. Railways. The
appellants were interviewed against 25% vacancies of Fitter in Group C E
category for Lumding Loco Repairing Shop and were selected against the
vacancies. They also joined as Fitter Grade III but on 7.6.90 the appointments
were cancelled and instead they were appointed to the post of Carriage
Khalasi which is a Group D post. Their appeal being rejected, they approached
the Administrative Tribunal where their prayer was rejected by the impugned F
judgment. We may state here that by the impugned judgment, the
Administrative Tribunal also disposed of Original Application filed-by 20
applicants. They also completed training as Apprentices but instead of
appointing them in Group D post, they were appointed in Group C post. Their
prayer for appointment in Group D post was also rejected but they are not G
before us.

According to respondents, the present appellants have no legal right
as they have accepted appointment offered to them in Group D post. They
are stopped from making any grievance against the same. As the Railway
Administration has acted consistently with the then prevailing policy, the H
686 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999) 2 S.C.R.

A decision could not be interfered with by the Tribunal. It has further been
pleaded Qn behalf of the respondents before the Tribunal that as the
appointment of the appellants by the initial order of appointment was found·
to be erroneous in view of the policy decision that these p.osts will be filled
up by promotion, the appointments were cancelled and instead of leaving the
B appellants high and dry, Railways have given them alternative· appointment
in Group D post which they have accepted. We have heard Mr. Shahid Rizvi
for the appellants and Ms.Rekha Pandey for the respondents.

In view of the contentions raised by the Bar, the question for
determination by this Court is whether there was violation of Articles 14 and
C 16 of the Constitution on the ground of arbitrariness and discrimination as
according to the appellants, the appointments were cancelled without giving
them any opportunity of being heard. It has also been urged that a5 the
appellants were Trade Apprentices under the Apprentice Act, 1961 (for short
The Act) and they successfully completed the training as Fitter and were
D selected for appointment for the posts, ihe cancellation order is in violation
of the Act.

According to Rule 159 of the Rules for Recruitment and Training of
Group C and Group D and Workshop Staff, out of the vacancy in the category
of Skilled Artisans Group C, 25% of the posts have to be filled up by selection
E from course completed 'Act Apprentices', ITI passed candidates and
Matriculates from the open market; serving employees who were course
completed 'Act Apprentices' or ITI qualified could be considered against this
quota allowing age relaxation as applicable to service employees. Thus we
find that for 25% of the p9sts, the three categories were to be considered for
p selection, namely,

(I) 25% by selection from course complete Aci Apprentices

(2) ITI passed candidates and Matriculates from the open market

G (3) Serving employees who were course completed Act Apprentices or
ITI qualified.

From the said Rule, it appears that 50% posts are to be filled up by
promotion of the staff in lower grade as per prescribed procedure. Thus it is
clear that the present appellants are qualified to be recruited for the above
H post. But the first question is whether they have got a right to be selected
MITRANGSHUROYCHOUDHARYv. U.O.l.& ORS. [S.N.PHUKAN,J.} 687
only because they are sent for training under the Act. We quote below A
Section 22 of the Act :-

· "22. Offer and acceptance of employment - (I) It shall not be obligatory
on the part of the employer to offer any employment to any apprentice
who has completed the period of his apprenticeship training in his
establishment nor shall it be obligatory on the part of the apprentice B
to accept an employment under the employer.

(2) Notwithstanding anything in sub-section (I), where there is a
condition in a contract of apprenticeship that the apprentice shall,
after the successful completion of the apprenticeship training, serve C
the employer, the employer shall, on such completion, be bound to
offer suitable employment to the apprentice, and the apprentice shall
be bound to serve the employer in that capacity for such period and
on su.ch remuneration as may be specified in the contract :

Provided that where such period or remuneration is not, in the opinion D
of the.Apprenticeship Adviser, reasonable, he may revise such period
or remuneration so as to make it reasonable, and the period or
remuneration so revised shall be deemed to be the period or
remuneration agreed to between the apprentice and the employer."

There is no dispute at the Bar that there was no guarantee or promise E
for employment while sending the present appellants to undergo the
apprenticeship course. Therefore, the appellants do not have the right to be
appointed under the Act in view of the specific legal provision under Section
22 of the Act. ·

In view of the settled position of law though under Rule 159 of the F
Rules of Recruitment and Training, 25% of the posts are to be selected from
the course completed Apprentices like the appellants, the appellants and
similarly situated persons cannot claim appointment as a matter of right for
this post. Railways may consider their cases for selection which was done in
the present case. G
The appointment letters to all the appellants were issued on 28.5.90 and
by letter dated 7.6.90 i.e. less than one month the appellants were informed
that in view of the decision at the Headquarter level by the Railway
Administration after discussion with both the Unions on 27.11.89 it was
decided that the course completed Apprentices are to be absorbed only in H
688 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] 2 S.C.R.

A Group D category and therefore, the earlier letter of appointment was cancelled
and the appellants were given fresh appointments in Group D post.

From the appointment letters dated 28.5.90 vide clause 2 of the letter,
the appellants were informed that if their services would be terminated, they
shall be entitled to a notice of 11 days or pay in lieu of. Thus this letter clearly
B shows that the appellants were appointed purely on temporary basis and their
services could be terminated by giving 11 days notice or pay in lieu thereof.
In view of the nature of appointment, the above clause of the letter dated
7.6.90 cannot be said to be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution
and at best the appellants would b~ entitled to get 11 days' notice or pay in
C lieu thereof.

Respondent-Railways have stated that the appointment letters were
issued due to bonafide mistake as the decisions taken on 27.11.89 by the
administration were not within the knowledge of Divisional Personnel Officer
of the Railway, Lumding, who issued appointment letters. There is no
D allegations that the letter dated 7.6.90 was issued with malafide intention. In
fact, Railways have clearly stated in the counter before the Tribunal that
instead of leaving the appellants high and dry, they were offered appointments
in Group D category in view of the decision arrived at between the
Administration and the Unions.
E
In the Lumding Division of N.F.Railways, there was stagnation of the
existing employees in Group D category and there was surplus staff, as a
result, closure of Steam Lumding Loco Shed. Therefore, the matter was
discussed between the Administration and the Unions and it was decided
that there will be no direct entry to Group C post and all the vacant posts
F will be filled up by promotion from Group D post. This policy decision was
reasonable one and it was taken to keep industrial peace, which fact was
taken note of by the Tribunal.

It is urged on behalf of the appellants that the above policy was
G communicated by the Railway Board subsequent to the appointments of the
appellants, therefore, it is not applicable in case of the appellants. We are
unable to accept the contention as the decision was taken in the meeting held
on 27.11.89 i.e. prior to letters of appointment issued to the appellants on
28.5.90. For the reasons stated, we hold that action of the respondents is not
arbitrary or discriminatory and, therefore, not violative of Articles 14 and 16
H of the Constitution.
MITRANGSHUROYCHOUDHARYv. U.O.I.& ORS. [S.N. PHUKAN,J.) 689
--· In the result, the appeal is dismissed. But in the facts and circumstances A
of the case, parties are to bear their own costs.

P.K.S. Appeal dismissed.