Case: Abdul Hamid And Ors Vs. Union Of India And Ors. The General Manager

the appointment of the appellants herein was subject to the final decision of the writ petitions.8. It is thus apparent that the appointment of the appellants was subject to the final result of the writ petitions. The writ petitions were finally dismissed on 5th December, 2007 but the persons appointed were allowed to continue for four months. The Railway administration filed a review petition but the same appears to have been rejected. The Railways accepted the order and judgment of the High Court and did not pursue the matter further. Thereafter, the Railways vide order dated 25.08.2008 discontinued/terminated the services of the fresh face substitutes/appellants. It is only then that the appellants filed the special leave petitions, which they were permitted to do. Leave was granted to file these appeals. Applications for intervention have also been filed by more than 300 other course completed qualified persons who have undergone apprenticeship training under the Railways.9. The first ground raised on behalf of the appellants is that since the fresh face substitutes/apprentices are appointed temporarily against short term vacancies, the Railways was well within its jurisdiction to limit the field of choice to those candidates who had undergone apprenticeship training with the Railways. In the alternative, it is submitted by Mr. R. Venkatramni, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants that the appellants who have been working for more than 10 years, they should now be permitted to continue and, in this regard, he has relied upon a large number of circulars issued from time to time by the railway administration whereby fresh face substitutes have been regularized.10. It is apparent that there is a policy of the Railways to grant regularization to these fresh face substitutes. We need not refer to all the circulars issued in this behalf, but a perusal of the documents especially those filed as additional documents clearly show that the Railways has a policy of regularizing these fresh face substitutes. This, in our opinion, is a clear indicator that while making appointment of fresh face substitutes, the field of choice should be wide and all citizens who are qualified and eligible should be given a chance to take part in the selection process. Though these appointments may be termed as short term appointments, the facts placed on record reveal that thousands of fresh face substitutes have been regularized and have become employees of the Railways because of the policy of the Railways. It is, therefore, imperative that while appointing fresh face substitutes, a transparent system of appointment is followed. It would be much better if the Railways follows the regular system of appointment rather than making appointments on ad hoc basis of fresh face substitutes. However, as and when exigencies of service require that fresh face substitutes have to be appointed, then also the field of choice cannot be limited only to those who have undergone their apprenticeship training with the Railways since that would patently violate Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India depriving those who have not undergone apprenticeship training with the Railways of an equal opportunity for applying for these posts.11. Reliance has been placed by learned counsel appearing for the Railways trained apprentices on the judgment of this Court passed in the case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Another v. U.P. Parivahan Nigam Shishukhs Berozgar Sangh and Others, 1995(2) S.C.T. 367 : (1995) 2 SCC 1. In Para 12 of the judgement it has been held that all other things being equal, the trained apprentices should be given preference upon direct apprentices. This judgment does not help the appellants at all. What has been held is that if the non-Railway trained apprentice is equal to the Railways trained apprentice on merit, then preference can be given to the Railways trained apprentice. The word "preference" does not mean that the Railways trained apprentice will have an exclusive right to the exclusion of all others to be considered for appointment. Both the Tribunal and the High Court were justified in deciding this issue against the Railways and in favour of the original applicants.12. As far as the second issue raised by Mr. R. Venkatramni, learned senior counsel is concerned, we may have sympathy with the appellants but we cannot direct that they be continued in service. The courts below held that they have been employed in violation of the general directions issued by the Railways from time to time wherein there is no restriction of limiting the field of choice to Railways trained apprenticeship. It is only in Bikaner Division of the Railways that this limitation was placed.13. The appellants were well aware that their appointments made when the original applications were pending before the Tribunal or when the writ petitions were pending before the High Court were subject to the result of the litigation. They did not choose to file any application for intervention before the High Court. After the Railways lost in the High Court and did not carry the matter further, they approached this Court. They were granted stay and have been continuing on the basis of the stay order. They knew that their fate depended upon the result of the litigation. Once their appeal is dismissed they cannot be permitted to be continued in employment only because they have been permitted to continue due to the interim orders.14. At this stage, we may note that the learned Solicitor General had informed us that fresh regular recruitment for Group-D posts and other posts in Bikaner Division of the Railways is under process. On 24th August, 2017, 14 original applicants were granted age relaxation for a period of 13 years and they were permitted to appear in the selection process wherein their cases would be considered on merit. Mr. R. Venkatramni, learned senior counsel had sought time to take instructions from his clients in this regard. He now submits that his clients, having served for more than 10 years, are not in a position to appear in the test.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]10. It is apparent that there is a policy of the Railways to grant regularization to these fresh face substitutes. We need not refer to all the circulars issued in this behalf, but a perusal of the documents especially those filed as additional documents clearly show that the Railways has a policy of regularizing these fresh face substitutes. This, in our opinion, is a clear indicator that while making appointment of fresh face substitutes, the field of choice should be wide and all citizens who are qualified and eligible should be given a chance to take part in the selection process. Though these appointments may be termed as short term appointments, the facts placed on record reveal that thousands of fresh face substitutes have been regularized and have become employees of the Railways because of the policy of the Railways. It is, therefore, imperative that while appointing fresh face substitutes, a transparent system of appointment is followed. It would be much better if the Railways follows the regular system of appointment rather than making appointments on ad hoc basis of fresh face substitutes. However, as and when exigencies of service require that fresh face substitutes have to be appointed, then also the field of choice cannot be limited only to those who have undergone their apprenticeship training with the Railways since that would patently violate Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India depriving those who have not undergone apprenticeship training with the Railways of an equal opportunity for applying for thesejudgment does not help the appellants at all. What has been held is that if thetrained apprentice is equal to the Railways trained apprentice on merit, then preference can be given to the Railways trained apprentice. The word "preference" does not mean that the Railways trained apprentice will have an exclusive right to the exclusion of all others to be considered for appointment. Both the Tribunal and the High Court were justified in deciding this issue against the Railways and in favour of the original applicants.12. As far as the second issue raised by Mr. R. Venkatramni, learned senior counsel is concerned, we may have sympathy with the appellants but we cannot direct that they be continued in service. The courts below held that they have been employed in violation of the general directions issued by the Railways from time to time wherein there is no restriction of limiting the field of choice to Railways trained apprenticeship. It is only in Bikaner Division of the Railways that this limitation was placed.13. The appellants were well aware that their appointments made when the original applications were pending before the Tribunal or when the writ petitions were pending before the High Court were subject to the result of the litigation. They did not choose to file any application for intervention before the High Court. After the Railways lost in the High Court and did not carry the matter further, they approached this Court. They were granted stay and have been continuing on the basis of the stay order. They knew that their fate depended upon the result of the litigation. Once their appeal is dismissed they cannot be permitted to be continued in employment only because they have been permitted to continue due to the interim orders.