Facts
The applicants, who were Course Completed Act Apprentices (CCAAs) trained in Railway Establishments and possessing National Apprenticeship Certificates (NAC), applied for various Level-1 posts under Central Employment Notification No. 01/2019 (CEN 01/2019) issued by the Ministry of Railway, Railway Recruitment Boards (RRB) on 23.02.2019
Source reference: p.27, para.3; p.30, para.6The last date for online registration was 12.04.2019
Source reference: p.31, para.6The notification stipulated that candidates must possess all eligibility conditions as of the closing date, and those waiting for final educational qualification results should not apply
Source reference: p.30, para.7; p.31, para.6Specifically, for CCAAs, Clause 12.2 of the notification stated that a candidate would be considered to have completed Act Apprenticeship training only if they had appeared in the NCVT examination on or before 12.04.2019
Source reference: p.31, para.6; p.41, para.20The applicants submitted online applications, marking "Yes" regarding the completion of the apprenticeship course
Source reference: p.31, para.7; p.42, para.22They successfully completed the Computer Based Test (CBT), Physical Efficiency Test (PET) (from which CCAAs were exempted), and appeared for document verification and medical examination
Source reference: p.28, para.3During document verification, it was found that 386 CCAA candidates, including the applicants, had NCVT certificates showing a passing month of April 2019, but the NCVT examination for these candidates (109th AITT) was actually conducted between 20.05.2019 and 14.06.2019, as per the letter from the Deputy Director of Training dated 20.05.2019
Source reference: p.30, para.6; p.38, para.16; p.44, para.24Due to this discrepancy and non-compliance with Clause 12.2, the RRC/SC withheld the results of these candidates
Source reference: p.31, para.6Upon clarification sought by SC Railway, the Railway Board, via letter dated 01.11.2023, stated that only candidates fulfilling all conditions as notified were eligible, and no change or relaxation in stipulations was feasible
Source reference: p.31, para.7Consequently, RRC/SC rejected 356 CCAA candidates who did not meet the eligibility conditions
Source reference: p.31, para.7The applicants contend that the delay in conducting the All India Trade Test (AITT) for the 109th batch was not their fault
Source reference: p.28, para.3; p.29, para.4They refer to a clarification from the 5th respondent (Directorate General of Training - DGT) dated 07.09.2023, suggesting that apprentices who passed the 109th AITT should be considered qualified based on their training completion date, as the exam date was beyond their control
Source reference: p.33, para.9; p.39, para.15They further argued that similarly situated candidates were allegedly recruited by RRC Mumbai and other Railways
Source reference: p.34, para.10; p.39, para.15The respondents, however, clarified that other Railways that erroneously empanelled such candidates have taken steps to de-empanel or terminate them
Source reference: p.36, para.12Issues
Whether the action of the respondents in cancelling the candidature of the applicants for not having appeared in the NCVT examination on or before the closing date of applications (12.04.2019) is sustainable under law?
Source reference: p.40, para.18Law Applied
The court applied the eligibility conditions stipulated in Centralized Employment Notification No. RRC 01-2019, particularly Clause 12.2, which mandates that a candidate must have appeared in the NCVT examination on or before the closing date of online registration (12.04.2019) to be considered as having completed Act Apprenticeship training
Source reference: p.41, para.20It also referenced Clauses 1 and 7 of the "IMPORTANT INSTRUCTIONS – ONLINE REGISTRATION & SUBMISSION APPLICATION" from the same notification, emphasizing that candidates must possess all eligibility criteria by the closing date and that false/incorrect information or suppression of relevant information would lead to rejection of candidature
Source reference: p.41, para.20; p.41, para.21; p.42, para.23The principle that rules of the game cannot be tinkered with once the recruitment process commences, as established in Tej Prakash Pathak & Ors. V. Rajasthan High Court & ors (Civil Appeal No. 2634/2023, dt. 07.11.2024), was also considered by the respondents
Source reference: p.36, para.11; p.45, para.26Reasoning
The court found that the applicants did not meet the eligibility criteria as stipulated in CEN 01/2019, Clause 12.2, which clearly required them to have appeared for the NCVT examination on or before 12.04.2019
Source reference: p.42, para.25The actual examination for the 109th AITT, in which the applicants participated, took place from 29.05.2019 to 14.06.2019, well after the cut-off date
Source reference: p.44, para.24; p.45, para.25The applicants’ claim of possessing National Apprenticeship Certificates showing a passing month of April 2019 was contradicted by the official schedule of the 109th AITT, highlighting an anomalous situation
Source reference: p.45, para.25Furthermore, the applicants misrepresented facts in their online applications by marking "Yes" to having completed the apprenticeship course, despite not having appeared for the NCVT exam by the cut-off date
Source reference: p.31, para.7; p.42, para.22This misrepresentation and suppression of facts alone rendered their candidature liable for rejection as per the notification's terms, which explicitly stated that false information would lead to outright rejection
Source reference: p.42, para.23The Railway Board, in its letter dated 01.11.2023, explicitly stated that no relaxation in the notified stipulations was feasible, reinforcing the immutability of the eligibility criteria once the recruitment process has begun, a principle supported by the Supreme Court in Tej Prakash Pathak
Source reference: p.31, para.7; p.45, para.26The DGT's letter dated 07.09.2023, suggesting consideration based on training completion dates, was deemed not binding without the employer's acceptance and could not unilaterally change the eligibility conditions of an ongoing recruitment process
Source reference: p.47, para.30Similar OAs at other benches raising similar issues have also been dismissed on these grounds
Source reference: p.46, para.28Holding
The Tribunal dismissed the OAs, holding that the applicants were not entitled to the relief sought
The respondents' action in cancelling the candidature of the applicants was deemed sustainable in law, as the applicants failed to fulfill the essential eligibility criteria unequivocally stated in Clause 12.2 of CEN 01/2019, pertaining to appearing for the NCVT examination by the specified cut-off date
Source reference: no citationThe applicants had also misrepresented and suppressed material facts in their online applications, which, according to the notification, warranted immediate rejection of their candidature
Source reference: p.42, para.22; p.42, para.23The Tribunal affirmed that the eligibility conditions, once notified, could not be relaxed retroactively.
Source reference: p.45, para.26Original Court PDF
OA No. 020/00672/2023 & Batch
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in