- (1.)Mr. Justice Bilal Nazki This is a writ petition filed by the petitioners questioning the orders passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No. 682 of 1995, dt. 4.3.1998. They also questioned the action of the respondents 2 to 4 in absorbing them in skilled grade following the Dockyard Permanent Order No. 12/86, dt. 3.12.1986 instead of absorbing them in HSK, Grade-II in pursuance of clause 4 of the agreement entered into between the employer i.e., President of India, represented by the respondents 2 to 4 and the petitioners read with Docyard Permanent Order 6/85.
(2.)The petitioners are working in Naval Dockyard, Visakhapatnam. The petitioners possess I.T.I. certificates and they applied to the Naval Dockyard Apprenticeship School, Visakhapatnam in pursuance of a notification. All of them were selected for non-designated trades and after they entered into an agreement, on 4.4.1986 they were admitted to the apprenticeship training. The petitioners appeared and passed All India Trade Test conducted by the National Council of Training in vocational trades. In terms of the agreement the petitioners were bound to work for 5 years in the Naval Dockyard and the respondents 2 to 4 were bound to engage them for 5 years. These conditions were applicable to non-designated trades and in case of designated trades there was no such obligation for either of the parties. According to the petitioners, contrary to the existing practice and conditions of the agreement the petitioners were absorbed in skilled grade instead of HSK, Grade-II. According to them, Dockyard Memo No. 6/85 laid down that an apprentice who completes his training and passes necessary examination with 60% to 64% of marks was eligible for absorption in HSK, Grade-II. While the petitioners were undergoing apprenticeship training, Dockyard Permanent Order 12/86 came into force and according to this order, apprentices who secured 60% to 64% of marks in the examination were not eligible to be appointed directly to HSK, grade-II, but could only be appointed to skilled grade.
(3.)It was the case of the petitioners that they had joined the apprenticeship course on 4.4.1986 and therefore the Dockyard Permanent Order No. 12/86 had no application to them. As they were in need of jobs, they could not insist absorption in HSK, Grade-II, therefore they joined in skilled grade on 1.5.1987. Thereafter the petitioners made several representations before the respondents to absorb them in HSK, Grade-II. In the meanwhile some apprentices belonging to non-designated trades who passed the examination on 3.4.1991 were appointed in HSK, Grade-II posts, but the orders were modified on the ground that another order had come into force and according to which, those persons were not eligible to be appointed to HSK, Grade-II directly. Those apprentices filed O.A.No. 327 of 1992 which was allowed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench by an order dt. 9.6.1994. On 17.3.1995 the representations of the petitioners were rejected. The rejection was basically on the ground that the petitioners were governed by the Dockyard Permanent Order No. 12/86 and according to which, the apprentices who secured 75% of marks and above were eligible to be appointed to HSK, Grade-II. The petitioners filed O.A.No. 682 of 1995 before the Tribunal which was dismissed on the ground that the petitioners had no right to claim direct appointment to HSK, Grade-II, as they could have claimed such right only after joining the service.