### National Trade Certificate in ‘Foundryman’ Trade Is Equivalent to ‘Moulder’ Trade for Recruitment Purposes

The applicant sought recruitment for the post of "Moulder" at the Indian Ordnance Factories, Jabalpur

He had completed training in the Moulder trade from ITI Bhilai in 2010

However, the National Trade Certificate issued to him on 06.03.2018 designated his trade as "Foundryman" instead of "Moulder"

The State Board of Examination clarified via certificate dated 25.01.2019 that the Government had renamed the "Moulder" trade to "Foundryman" since 2014

Despite this, the respondents rejected the applicant's candidature on 08.06.2019 on the grounds that he did not possess a certificate specifically in the "Moulder" trade

The applicant challenged this rejection, citing precedents where the two trades were held to be equivalent

1. Whether the National Trade Certificate/National Apprenticeship Certificate in the "Foundryman" trade is equivalent to the "Moulder" trade for the purpose of recruitment

2. Whether the rejection of the applicant’s candidature due to the change in nomenclature of the trade was legally sustainable

The Tribunal applied the principle of res integra, noting that the legal controversy regarding the equivalence of the "Foundryman" and "Moulder" trades had already been settled by judicial precedent

It specifically relied on the decision of the Principal Bench of the CAT in Aman Ors. v. Union of India Ors. (OA No. 949/2021), which was subsequently affirmed by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in W.P. No. 13619/2023

These precedents established that "Foundryman" is merely a renamed version of the "Moulder" trade and must be treated as equal for recruitment purposes

The Tribunal observed that the facts of the present case were identical to those in the Aman case

It noted that the Government of India had officially changed the nomenclature of the trade from Moulder to Foundryman in 2014

Therefore, insisting on a certificate with the old trade name ("Moulder") after the official name change was oridained to be an error of form over substance.

The Bench maintained that since the subject matter and the sought relief were identical to the precedent, there was no reason to deviate from the established judicial view that NAC in Foundryman is equal to NAC in Moulder

Consequently, the respondents' act of cancelling the candidature despite valid certification of the name change was found to be unjustified

It held that the certificate in the "Foundryman" trade is equivalent to the "Moulder" trade.

The respondents were directed to reconsider the applicant’s case for appointment to the post of Moulder within 90 days of the receipt of the order

No costs were awarded