Kerala High Court
Libin Joseph vs Transformers And Electricals Kerala on 21 January, 2010
Bench: K.Balakrishnan Nair, C.T.Ravikumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA.No. 72 of 2010()
1. LIBIN JOSEPH, S/O. P.C.JOSEPH,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. TRANSFORMERS AND ELECTRICALS KERALA
... Respondent
2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
3. N.M.SHAMEER, OPERATOR GRADE III TRAINEE-
4. O.S.ANOOP, OPERATOR GRADE II TRAINEE-
5. S.R.SUBHASH, OPERATOR GRADE III
6. A.NOUSHAD, OPERATOR GRADE III
For Petitioner :SRI.K.J.JOSEMON
For Respondent :SRI.M.PATHROSE MATTHAI (SR.)
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.T.RAVIKUMAR
Dated :21/01/2010
O R D E R
K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ.
------------------------------
W.A. No.72 OF 2010
------------------------------
Dated this, the 21st day of January, 2010
J U D G M E N T
~~~~~~~~~~~ Balakrishnan Nair, J.
The appellant was a candidate, who applied for the post of Operator Grade-III (Mechinist). He claims, he was included as Rank No.4 in the rank list published by the 1st respondent Company. Three persons were appointed from the said list. The Writ Petition was filed by the appellant on the ground that he was an apprentice under the Apprentices Act,1961 and therefore, he is entitled to get preference. Secondly, it was contended that being such an apprentice, who successfully completed the apprenticeship period, no written test should have been conducted in his case. Thirdly, it is pointed out that, now there are vacancies, so, he being the 4th person in the select list, he should be appointed. W.A. No.72/2010
- 2 -
2. We heard the learned standing counsel for the 1st respondent. We notice that all the above three points were considered by the learned Single Judge. The learned Judge noticed that as per the decision of the Apex Court in U.P.State Road Transport Corporation and another v. U.P.Parivahan Nigam Shishukhs Berozgar Sangh and other (AIR 1995 SUPREME COURT 1115], apprentices are entitled to preference, provided, other things are equal. In this case, the appellant was inferior in merit and therefore, he cannot claim preference on the strength of that decision. The direction in the above decision, not to conduct written test for apprentices, who successfully completed the apprenticeship period, has been modified by the Apex Court in a subsequent decision rendered in Civil Appeal No. 4166/2008. The direction to waive the requirement of written test, it was held, will apply only to the candidates involved in the case of U.P.State Road Transport Corporation. In the case of other establishments, if the recruitment rules permits holding of a written test, it can be held. Noticing the above facts, the aforementioned contentions were rejected by the learned Single Judge. According to us, it was rightly done. We find no reason to take a different view. W.A. No.72/2010
- 3 -
3. The last contention was that the appellant should be accommodated in one of the existing vacancies. For the 1st respondent, there is no system of preparing a rank list, which will be alive for a period and the vacancies arising during the life of the rank list being filled up from that list. Normally, notifications are issued for specified vacancies and by filling up those vacancies, the rank list becomes non- operational. This position was noticed by the learned Single Judge and the claim of the appellant for appointment in the existing vacancy was repelled. We think it was done rightly by the learned Single Judge.
In the result, the Writ Appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed.
(K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE) (C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) ps