MITRANGSHU ROY CHOUDHARY vs U O I — C.A. No. 3210/1996

The Supreme Court dismissed the appellants' appeal against the Central Administrative Tribunal's order, holding that their initial Group C appointment letters (issued 28.5.90) were validly cancelled and replaced with Group D positions (7.6.90). The Court found no violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, reasoning that: (1) Section 22 of the Apprentice Act, 1961 confers no guaranteed right to employment upon completion of training; (2) the Railway's policy decision (made 27.11.89, before the appointment letters) to absorb apprentices only in Group D to maintain industrial peace was reasonable; and (3) the temporary nature of the initial appointment (with 11-day termination clause) precluded any constitutional violation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.