Union of India represented by General Manager, Southern Railway, Chennai & others v. Rajaneesh Kumar

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH** ## **&** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON** **THURSDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE 2019 / 6TH ASHADHA, 1941** **OP (CAT).No.41 of 2017** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OA 180/2015 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH DATED 24.11.2016** ## **PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS:** - **1 UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, CHENNAI-600 003** - **2 THE CHAIRMAN THE RAILWAY RECRUITMENT BOARD, CHENNAI-600 008** - **3 SENIOR DIVISIONAL PERSONNEL OFFICER SOUTHERN RAILWAY, TRIVANDRUM- 695014** - **BY ADV. SRI.B.RAJESH, SC, RAILWAYS** ## **RESPONDENT/APPLICANT:** ## **RAJANEESH KUMAR** **AGED:25 YEARS, S/O BRANJENDRA SHARMA, WORKING AS TRACK MAN/SSE/P.WAY/QUILON, TRIVANDRUM DIVISION, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, PERMANENTLY RESIDING AT SAHADANI, AMARI POST, AURANGABAD, BIHAR** **BY ADV. SRI.MARTIN G.THOTTAN** **THIS OP (CAT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17.6.2019, THE COURT ON 27.06.2019 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** OP(CAT) 41/2017 -2- ## **J U D G M E N T** ## **[OP(CAT) No.41 of 2017]** ## Ashok Menon, J. The respondents in OA No.180/00222/2015 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench are the petitioners herein challenging the impugned order of the Tribunal dated 24.11.2016 allowing the application and directing the petitioners herein to consider appointment of the applicant to the post of Assistant Loco Pilot in the Indian Railways. 2. The facts in brief are thus: The respondent/applicant was working as Track-man in the Railways and posted at Thiruvananthapuram. He aspires to become an Assistant Loco Pilot in the Railways and in response to Annexure-A1 notification submitted his application. He was a OP(CAT) 41/2017 -3- graduate with ITI certificate in the trade of Electrician, which was sufficient to qualify him to apply for the post. He succeeded in the written examination as well as in the aptitude test and stood fourth in the ranked list of successful candidates. On being called upon for verification of documents, he produced his certificates including a true copy of the provisional National Trade Certificate issued by the State Council for Vocational Training at Annexure-A5. Subsequently, he had also obtained National Trade Certificate issued by the Ministry of Labour and Employment, Govt. of India at Annexure-A6. However, to his dismay, his candidature was rejected without assigning any reasons. He approached the Tribunal and sought relief. The Railways contended that the applicant failed to produce his valid NCVT trade certificate in time. The Tribunal accepted the OP(CAT) 41/2017 -4- averment of the applicant that provisional certificate was sufficient, and allowed the application directing the respondents therein to appoint the applicant. 3. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the Railways have filed this Original Petition challenging the order mainly on the ground that production of original certificate for verification was mandatory. For similar reasons, the Railways had rejected applications of many other candidates and the applicant was just one of them. The petitioners have also produced Ext.P4 which is a certificate issued to a candidate named Kalaiselvan, from the Office of the Chief Workshop Manager, Carriage and Wagon Works, Southern Railway Perambur, Chennai signed by the Chief Workshop Manager certifying that he has passed the All India National Council for Vocational Training Test OP(CAT) 41/2017 -5- securing the marks shown therein. The said certificate was rejected for the reason that the same was not issued by the NCVT, which was essential for being considered for appointment to the post of Assistant Loco Pilot. The Tribunal's order allowing the applicant to be considered would amount discrimination against those, whose candidatures have been rejected on similar grounds, violating Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of the India, is the contention of the petitioners herein. 4. We heard Adv.B.Rajesh, learned Standing Counsel for the Railways appearing for the petitioners and Adv.Martin A.Thottam appearing for the respondent. 5. There is no dispute that the applicant had qualified the ITI examination in the trade of Electrician conducted by the NCVT prior to the OP(CAT) 41/2017 -6- filing of the application for the post of Assistant Loco Pilot in the Railways. He had also produced the provisional National Trade Certificate issued by the Principal of the Institution where he was studying as also the provisional National Trade Certificate issued by the State Government, at Annexures- A2 and A5 respectively. Annexaure-A2 is signed by the Principal of the Institution while Annexure-A5 was signed by the Controller of Examinations, Employment and Training, Jharkhand for the Department of Labour, Employment and Training, and also the Principal of the institution. Annexures-A5 and A6 are provisional certificates but Ext.P4 pertaining to another candidate, produced by the petitioners is the certificate issued by the Office of Chief Workshop Manager, Carriage & Wagon Works, Southern Railway, Perambur and nowhere therein it is written that it OP(CAT) 41/2017 -7- is a provisional certificate and hence Ext.P4 certificate was rightly rejected by the Railways, whereas rejection of Annexures-A2 and A5 was not appropriate because it is made clear in those certificates that they are provisional certificates and that the National Trade Certificate will be issued by the National Council of Vocational Training. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners has relied on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in _**Anu M.S.**_ v. _**Secretary, KSPC and others [ILT 2019 (2) Kerala 78]**_ in support of the argument that production of provisional certificate in place of original is not sufficient. On going through the decision of the Division Bench, it is seen that what was considered there, was about the validity of a provisional registration with the Travancore-Cochin Medical Council, which according OP(CAT) 41/2017 -8- to the Division Bench was not a valid registration as specified by the KPSC for appointment to the post of Assistant Surgeon. The ratio in that decision cannot be imported to the case in hand because provisional registration in a medical council is something different from issuance of provisional certificate by an educational institution or University. 7. A provisional certificate is valid till the original certificate is issued by the authority or the University, which may take some time. The veracity of Annexures-A2 and A5 cannot be questioned because ultimately in support of those certificates Annexure-A6 Original certificate is issued by the National Council of Vocational Training in 2015. 8. It is difficult for young men to get employed these days and rejecting their claims for OP(CAT) 41/2017 -9- appointment on flimsy grounds, despite having performed well in the written and aptitude tests, would be unfair to them. We do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned finding of the Tribunal. The Original Petition is dismissed. No costs. **Sd/-** **V.CHITAMBARESH** **JUDGE** **Sd/-** **ASHOK MENON JUDGE** jg OP(CAT) 41/2017 -10- ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** |**P1**|**TRUE COPY OF THE OA NO. 180/00222/2015**| |---|---| ||**DATED 14/3/2015 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT**| ||**BEFORE THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE**| ||**TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH**| |**P2**|**TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT IN OA**| ||**NO. 180/00222/2015 DATED NIL FILED BY**| ||**THE PETITIONERS**| |**P3**|**TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN OA NO.**| ||**180/00222/2015 DATED 24/11/2016 OF THE**| ||**CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,**| ||**ERNAKULAM BENCH**| |**P4**|**TRUE COPY OF THE ITI CERTIFICATE OF**| ||**G.KALAISELVAN DATED 16/7/2001**|