Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
This Writ Petition Is Filed Under ... vs U.P.Parivan Nsb Sangh Reported In Air ... on 1 April, 2022
THE HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO
WRIT PETITION No.1764 of 2012
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:
".....to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of mandamus in not awarding weitage marks in favour of the petitioners in view of the Apprenticeship Training undergone by the petitioner while extending such weightage marks for service to contract labout for the post of Junior Plant Attendant notified vide Notification No. 01/CGM (HR)/2010, dated 05.01.2011 and Supplemental Notification No. 01/CGM(HR)/2011, dated 17.10.2011 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and contrary to the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in U.P State Road Transport Corporation Vs. U.P.Parivan NSB Sangh reported in AIR 1995 SC 1115 and consequently direct the respondents to award weightage marks to the petitioner on par with contract labour and pass such other orders."
2. The Claim of the petitioner is that he was passed ITI (Welder) with 532/700 marks. Later, the petitioner was worked as Welder- cum-Cutter in Mechanical Fabrication and erection works in KTPS (Kothagudem Thermal Power Station) on contract basis from August- 1991 to April, 1993. Thereafter, the petitioner has undergone Apprenticeship Training in KTPS, Palvoncha from 16.04.1993 to 15.04.1994 and passed Trade Test as a regular candidate held in the month of November-1994 and he was issued with Apprenticeship Certificate. Again the petitioner worked as contract labour from May 1994 to April 1998 through the Contractor M/s Meltech Constructions. However, the petitioner could not produce copies of gate passes on the reason that the petitioner has not been extended weightage marks for service experience. The petitioner applied for the post of Junior Plant Attendant as per the notification No. 01/CGM 2 (HR)/2010, dated 05.01.2011. In fact, when the petitioner was not allowed due to over age, he filed W.P.No. 1343 of 2011 and this Court passed interim order dated 28.01.2011. As per interim order the petitioner's application was accepted and attended written test held on 18.12.2011. The marks obtained by ech candidate on the basis of ITI marks, weightage marks from the date of passing of ITI and service experience weightage other than the marks in written test have been display by te respondents as per which the petitioner has been awarded the marks viz., ITI (allocation of marks) is 22.8 and Weightage marks for passing of qualifying examination of ITI up to the date of notification is 10.0, totalling 32.8. Which show that the petitioner has not been awarded 10 marks for service as contract labour. When the petitioner approached the 2nd respondent, who replied that the petitioner will not be awarded 10 marks service weightage due to non enclosure of any gate pass or EPF. Though the petitioner has undergone Apprenticeship Training in KTPS for a period of one year. Therefore the petitioner has to be extended weightage on par with contract labour. Further the action of the respondents in awarding weightage in favour of contract labour while denying such benefit to the candidates undergone Apprenticeship Training in APGENCO is illegal and arbitrary. Hence the present writ petition came to be filed.
3. Heard Mr. G.V.Shivaji, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M. Vidyasagar, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner had undergone apprenticeship training in KTPS, Palvoncha and also worked as contract labour from May 1994 to April 1998 through the Contractor M/s Meltech Constructions. Therefore the 3 petitioner has to be extended weightage on par with contract labour. But the respondents denying such benefit to the candidates undergone Apprenticeship Training in APGENCo is highly illegal and arbitrary.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision in a case of U.P.State Road Transport Corporation and another, Appellants Vs. U.P.Parivahan Nigam Shishukhs Berozgar Sangh and others, Respondents1 wherein it was held as follows:
"7. .......Even so, Section 22 of the Act states, and it is theis provision which has been pressed into service by the appellants, that it shall not be obligatory on the part of the employer to offer any employment to any apprentice who has completed the period of his apprenticeship training in his establishment unless there be a condition in the contract to the contrary......."
.......
"12. In the back ground of what has been noted above, we state that the following would be kept in mind while dealing with the claim of trainees to get employment after successful completion of their training:-
(1) Other things being equal, a trained apprentice should be given preference over direct recruits.
(2) For this, a trainee would not be required to get his name sponsored by any employment exchange. The decision of this Court in Union of India V.Haragopal, AIR 1987 SC 1227, would permit this.
(3) If age bar would come in the way of the trainee, the same would be relaxed in accordance with what is stated in this regard, if any, in this concerned service rules. If the service rule be silent on this aspect, relaxation to the extent of the period for which the apprentice had undergone training would be given.
(4) The concerned training institute would maintain a list of the persons trained year wise. The persons trained earlier would be treated as senior to the persons trained later. In between 1 AIR 1995 SC 1115 4 the trained apprentices, preference shall be given to those who are senior".
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further relied on a decision of erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in W.P.M.P.No. 2851 of 2011 in W.P.No. 2290 of 2011 and batch, wherein the learned Single Judge opined that it would not be in the interest of the organization to stall the finalization of selection to the subject posts. The same would not only hinder the administration of the APGENCO, but would also impact its public oriented services. There would therefore be no purpose served in staying the finalization of selections pending the final determination of these cases. In view of protect the interest of the petitioners, the Court directed the APGENCO can keep vacant as many numbher of posts as many number of posts as the petitioners in the batch of cases.
7. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents opposed to grant the relief in favour of the petitioner, though not stated why the respondents in not considering the weightage marks on the petitioner on par with contract labour and no counter is filed.
8. As seen from the record the petitioner has filed the document viz., Hall Ticket for the Post of Junior Plant Attendnat in the respondent corporation and other certificates showing his qualification including the Apprenticeship Certificate issued by the KTPS, Paloncha, which shows that the petitioner did apprenticeship in KTPS, Paloncha during the period from 16.04.1993 to 15.04.1994, which is sufficient to prove that the petitioner has done apprenticeship. Further there is an interim order passed by this Court dated 27.01.2012 directing the respondent to consider the application of the petitioner for the post of Junior Plant Attendeant, but the 5 selection of the candidates shall not be finanlized pending further orders.
9. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel and on perusal of the documents this court concluded that the respondents failed to prove the disqualification of the candidature of the petitioner and in view of decitions referred above, the petitioner is entitled for the relief as claimed in the writ petition.
10. In view of the above said circumstances, directing the respondents to award weightage marks to the petitioner on par with contract labour in accordance with law vide Notification No. 01/CGM (HR)/2010, dated 05.01.2011 and Supplemental Notification No.01/CGM(HR).2011, 17.10.2011 within a period of period of six (06) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
11. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed.
__________________________________ DR.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO Date: 01.04.2022.
KK 6 THE HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION No.1764 of 2012 Date: 01.04.2022.
KK