MITRANGSHU ROY CHOUDHARY AND ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [1999] 2 S.C.R. 683 · Decided: 15-04-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.S.M. QUADRI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

·- -
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. · C 
I 
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 of Policy 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. 
c 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
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.

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.