Cancellation of Apprenticeship Notification Without Valid Grounds Does Not Nullify Prior Eligible Applications

The three applicants applied for apprenticeship training with the Western Railway under a notification dated 03.05.2016

They completed document verification and were declared medically fit

However, on 18.11.2016, the respondents issued a fresh centralized notification for a higher number of slots (444 instead of 249), simultaneously cancelling the May 2016 notifications

The respondents cited "administrative lapses" and a "system improvement drive" initiated by the Railway Board as the reason for the cancellation

Applicants 1 and 2 applied under the fresh notification, while Applicant 3 did not

The applicants challenged the cancellation as arbitrary, seeking appointment based on the first notification

1. Whether the cancellation of the initial advertisement after the applicants had completed medical and physical tests was legal and justified under administrative grounds

2. Whether the applicants are entitled to appointment/joining orders based solely on the first notification

The court primarily applied the Apprentice Act, 1961, noting that it does not create a mandatory obligation on the employer to offer permanent employment upon completion of training

It also considered the internal administrative directions of the Railway Board (RBE No. 120/2015 and PS No. 183/2016), which mandated the cancellation of scattered notifications in favor of centralized notifications based on geographical jurisdiction to improve systemic transparency

Furthermore, the court balanced the administrative prerogative to cancel a selection process with the principle of fairness toward candidates who had already qualified in previous stages

The Tribunal observed that while the respondents claimed "administrative lapses" necessitated a fresh centralized notification, the eligibility criteria and parameters remained identical to the cancelled notification

The court found that the applicants had already undergone the rigors of document verification and medical examinations at the respondents' instance

Although the respondents argued that the cancellation was a policy decision to centralize recruitment, the Tribunal noted that the fresh notification failed to explain the cancellation of the prior process to the candidates or provide a bridge for those who had already qualified

The court reasoned that since the criteria had not changed, it was unfair to deprive the applicants of consideration merely because they were caught in a transition of administrative policy

The court directed the respondent authorities to consider the applications submitted by the applicants under the previous notification (May 2016) as valid, specifically for those who may not have applied under the subsequent notification dated 18.11.2016. The relief for direct appointment orders (8.3) was not granted as the training process had not yet commenced/concluded.