Karnataka High Court
A. Nagaraja vs The Karnataka State Road Transport ... on 23 September, 1998
Equivalent citations: 1999(2)KARLJ161, (1999)ILLJ1231KANT
ORDER
1. Heard Mr. B. Prabhu Devaru, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. K. Lakshminarayana Rao, learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 and 2 and Mr. Kaleemulla Shariff, learned Counsel for respondent 3.
2. The petitioner being unsuccessful in getting an appointment to the post of Helper (B) in the respondent-Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (in short the 'Corporation') has approached this Court with the prayer that keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the respondent-Corporation should be directed to provide him an appointment to the said post by quashing the selection of the 3rd respondent.
3. As per the KSRTC (Cadre and Recruitment) Regulations, 1982, the minimum educational qualification required for appointment to the post of Helper (B) (Class IV) is that a person must have passed the certificate course either in ITC or ITI after passing the Secondary School Leaving Certificate conducted by the Karnataka Secondary Education Examination Board or equivalent examination. According to the petitioner, even though he possesses the minimum qualification and is better merited than the 3rd respondent, the respondent-Corporation selected the 3rd respondent bypassing his merit.
4. According to the respondent-Corporation, the petitioner could not be selected to the post in question because he could score only 69.86% of marks including the rural grace marks in qualifying examination. Whereas, the cut-off marks for the Category III(B) candidates to which the petitioner belongs was 72.54%.
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has questioned the validity of non-selection of the petitioner on the plea that the petitioner had undergone the training under National Apprenticeship Training Scheme conducted by the National Council for Vocational Training (in short the 'Council.') in Auto Electrician much less in the establishment of the respondent-Corporation and therefore keeping in view the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and Another v Uttar Pradesh Parivahan Nigam Shiskukhs Berozgar Sangh and Others, he was entitled to preference in appointment as compared to over other direct recruits like the 3rd respondent.
6. On the other hand, Mr. Lakshminarayana, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent-Corporation has referred to the marks sheet of the petitioner pertaining to the test held by the Council established by the Central Government which shows that the petitioner has failed in the test held for the trade for which he was admitted to the training. Therefore, according to him, the petitioner was not taken as having completed apprentice training successfully and entitled to the benefit of preference in terms of the judgment in Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation's case, supra.
7. In para 12 of the judgment in Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation's case, supra, it has been held that.-
"In the background 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 N. Hargopal , 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 the concerned service rule. 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 the trained apprentices, preference shall be given to those who are senior".
8. A bare reading of the above directions issued by the Supreme Court clearly amplifies that preference can be given only to a person who has successfully completed his training in a particular trade. The Council conducts the test keeping in view the provisions contained in Section 21 of the Apprentices Act, 1961 (in short the 'Act'). Sub-sections (1) and (2) thereof are material for the present purpose which reads thus.-
"21. Holding of test and grant of certificate and conclusion of training.--(1) Every trade apprentice who has completed the period of training shall appear for a test to be conducted by the National Council to determine his proficiency in the designated Grade in which he has undergone his apprenticeship training.
(2) Every trade apprentice who passes the test referred to in subsection (1) shall be granted a certificate of proficiency in the trade by the National Council.
(3) xxx xxx xxx".
9. In my opinion, a bare reading of the above provisions makes it abundantly clear that a person can be said to have completed his apprentice training within the meaning of Act only if he is found to have passed the test held under Section 21 of the Act. Taking of any other view will defeat the very object and purpose of the Act and the law laid down by the Supreme Court because in para 3 of the judgment it has been clearly noticed by the Supreme Court that the provisions made in the Act were aimed to provide 'on the job training' to the products of vocational streams so that adequate competence and skill required for various occupations are acquired leading to 'suitable employment or self-employment opportunities' in organised industries etc.
10. Keeping in view these aspects, in my opinion, a person, who has failed in the test on completion of training, to ascertain his level of skill and achievements in particular trade cannot be considered as having successfully completed the training under the Act.
11. For the said reasons, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief as claimed in the writ petition which is accordingly dismissed.