SATISH CHANDRA, J. - (1.) BY this writ petition, the petitioners have assailed the order dated 20th January, 2009 as well as dated 4.2.2009 passed by the Central Admin­istrative Tribunal in Original Application Nos. 569/06; 148/05; 509/04; 523/04; and 4.2.2009 also in Review Petition No. 3 of 2009.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the petitioners are diploma holders in mechani­cal engineering and had gone for the Appren­tice Training as per the Apprentice Act at Loco Workshop of Railway. The General Manager of the Northern Railway gave the approval to fill up Group-D vacancies i.e. Khalasi available in mechanical workshops, so the petitioners have made requests on 19.2.1999. The petitioners want the post of Khalasi which falls in Group-D posts. It is alleged by the petitioners that they were called for veri­fication and call letters were issued to them for Group-D posts in the month of Septem­ber, 2004. On 27.9.2004, without assigning any reason, verification of the documents was postponed/suspended, while the same was done for the other Trade Apprentices. Ag­grieved by the order, the petitioners filed Original Applications before the Central Ad­ministrative Tribunal. The Central Administrative Tribunal has dismissed the Original Applications. Not being satisfied, the petition­ers have filed the review petition which was also dismissed by the impugned order. Still not being satisfied, the petitioners have knocked the door of this Court through the present writ petition. With this background, learned counsel for the petitioners Sri Shachindra Pratap Singh submits that the order passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal is arbitrary and unreasonable and, therefore, is liable to be quashed. He further submits that the Tribunal has erred in passing the order dated 20.1.2009 on the same pleadings on which the order dated 20.12.2004 was passed and the same was quashed by this Hon'ble Court. According to the counsel, the Central Administrative Tribunal has lost the sight of the fact that the opposite-parties have failed to produce any documentary evidence which would indicate that the diploma holders were barred for consideration for engagement in the Group-D posts. The Railway Board vide order dated 21.6.2004 has directed to engage Trade Apprentices but not the petitioners. H also submits that it was beyond the scope a General Manager's power to permit only the Trade Apprentices for engagement and not permitted the other Course Completed Act Apprentices (like the petitioners). He further submits that more qualified persons are not disqualified for consideration to a post when the opposite-parties themselves appointing the Diploma Holders and Trade Apprentices on the post of Training Assistant and loco Pilot. Therefore, the petitioners cannot be deprived of their right of being considered for Group-D post. For this purpose, he also repeats the case-laws which were already discussed in the impugned orders.
(3.) THE learned counsel also submits that the Tribunal has not decided the petition finally and left the matter to the Railway Board who took a negative decision after a period of six years. He has drawn the attention to Annexure No.6 of the writ petition, which is ac of a letter dated 21.6.2004 wherein it mentioned that:- "Some of the Railways have in the past approached board to satisfy as to whether course completed Act apprentices can be engaged as substitutes in group 'D' It is clarified that Course completed Act Apprentices can be engaged as substitutes in Group' under G.M's power in administrative exigencies subject to their engagement of the s instructions prescribed for such engagement.;