UNION OF INDIA Vs. RAGHUBIR OMPRAKASH SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these writ petitions may be disposed off by the common judgment as they arise out of common judgment passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in a group of original applications.

(2.) To state in brief, the respondents, had filed a group of nine original applications before the Central Administrative Tribunal (C.A.T.) According to the nature of the dispute and for the sake of convenience, the C.A.T. divided the said original applications into two sets. The first set consisted of Original Applications Nos.989 of 2000, 584 of 2000, 655 of 2000 and 124 of 2001 and the second set consisted of Original Applications Nos.855 of 2000, 857 of 2000, 858 of 2000, 859 of 2000 and 860 of 2000. The first four writ petitions are pertaining to the first set and the remaining five writ petitions are pertaining to the second set. The applicants in first set are those apprentices, who were admitted to NDA School under the Apprentices Act, 1961 in pursuance to their selection in an open competition for 58, 59 and 60th batches. Dockyard is within the ambit of Apprentices Act. They were imparted training to fill up the technical vacancies in the N.D.A. Schools. After qualifying the preliminary test as well as physical and medical test, they were selected for these jobs and were also employed. When they signed the contract, Dockyard Memo (DM) No.6/85 was in force in respect of allocation of grades to the apprentices for the purpose of employment on completion of training on the basis of merit list. As per Clause 'e' of that contract, the petitioners were to offer suitable appointment in grade I or grade II to the apprentices depending upon their merit based on performance in the training . Some of them had to undergo two years apprentice training course and some had to undergo three years apprentice training course. The respondents, who were admitted to two years training course and who belong to batch no.58 had joined in April, 1995 and completed the course in March, 1997, those, who belong to 59th batch joined in October, 1995 and completed course in October, 1997 and those from 60th batch had joined in April, 1996 and completed course in March, 1998. The apprentices, in each of these batches, who had to undergo three years course, completed their course within their stipulated period. As per DM 6/85, the weightage for terminal examination, final examination and overall conduct was to assigned in ratio 40:50:10 out of 100 marks. Ten marks were awarded by Officer-in-Charge on the basis of several components and factors regarding overall performance of the apprentice. Based on their performance, they were to be given grades in highly skilled or skilled category and they would get certain increments in the said grades depending upon their performance and marks secured. There was also a category of journeyman in H.G. Grade-I for which special training for a further period of one year was required as per DM 9/73. Admittedly, when the training of respondents belonging to 58th, 59th, 60th and 61st batches were in progress, DM 6/85 was revoked by Dockyard Temporary Memo (DTM) 4 of 97. It was further revised by DTM 35/97 dated 17th March, 1997 and finally by another DTM 117/99 issued on 21-9-1999. By these three DTMs, parameters for the purpose of fixation of merits were changed. The provision for giving appointment in highly skilled grade was abolished as well as category of journeyman also came to be abolished. According to the respondents, this was detrimental to their interest. Therefore, they challenged the revocation of DM 6/85 with retrospective effect. In second set of original applications, it was contended by the respondents/original applicants that the procedure of giving marks out of 10 by the officer-in-charge on the basis of overall performance was arbitrary and was also not properly followed. They challenged the assessment made by the officer-in-charge and allotment of marks out of 10 marks because according to them, this had adversely affected their prospects of getting jobs, pay and also future prospective.

(3.) It was also contended that DM 6/85 was issued on approval of the Head Quarter's office while the subsequent DTMs were issued without any such approval and, therefore, they had no sanction of law. It was contended that in view of the terms of the contract entered into at the time of the respondents' admission as apprentices, doctrine of promissory estoppel and doctrine of legitimate expectation operate against the petitioner and lastly, it is contended that once, the selection process has started, the criteria can not be altered by the authorities in the middle or after the process of selection.