Gujarat High Court
Chauhan Maheshbhai Khatubhai vs Madhya Gujarat Vij Company Limited Thro ... on 3 April, 2014
Author: Abhilasha Kumari
Bench: Abhilasha Kumari
C/SCA/14995/2012 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14995 of 2012
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE ABHILASHA KUMARI
================================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see No
the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? No
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the No
judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as No
to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 or any
order made thereunder ?
5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? No
================================================================
CHAUHAN MAHESHBHAI KHATUBHAI....Petitioner(s)
Versus
MADHYA GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LIMITED THRO CHIEF
ENGINEER....Respondent(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR P P MAJMUDAR, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR PREMAL R JOSHI, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE ABHILASHA
KUMARI
Date : 03/04/2014
Page 1 of 8
C/SCA/14995/2012 JUDGMENT
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Rule. Mr.Premal R. Joshi, learned advocate, waives service of notice of Rule for the respondent.
2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and with the consent of the learned counsel for the respective parties, the petition is being heard and decided finally.
3. By preferring this petition under Article-226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the issuance of a writ of mandamus or any other writ or direction to the respondent Madhya Gujarat Vij Company Limited ("the Electricity Company" for short), to appoint him as an Electrical Assistant as per the priority number of the petitioner in the priority list, prepared by the Electricity Company.
4. The petitioner had initially worked as a lineman with the erstwhile Gujarat Electricity Board from 13.10.2000 to 12.10.2002. He was issued a Provisional National Apprenticeship Certificate by the Regional Office of the National Apprentice Scheme. The respondent Electricity Company maintains a priority Page 2 of 8 C/SCA/14995/2012 JUDGMENT list as per which, persons who have completed the training as per the Apprentice Act, 1961, and who have passed the trade test, are given appointment as per the Vidhyut Sahayak Scheme as Electrical Assistants, upon certain conditions. The name of the petitioner figured at Serial No.774 of the priority list and his priority number was 2313-A. The petitioner has passed the trade test and, according to him, he is entitled for appointment as an Electrical Assistant, as per the policy of the respondent Electricity Company. As per the petitioner, the priority list has been operated upto Serial No.778, and persons whose names appear after the name of the petitioner and who are below the petitioner in the list have been given appointment by the Electricity Company. In the above background, it is prayed that the petitioner be granted such appointment, as well.
5. Mr.P.P.Majmudar, learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the action of the respondent-Electricity Company in not granting appointment as Electrical Assistant to the petitioner, is against their policy, as the name of the petitioner in the priority list is above the name of some persons Page 3 of 8 C/SCA/14995/2012 JUDGMENT who have been given such appointments. The petitioner has passed the trade test and is eligible for appointment, therefore, the prayers made in the petition may be granted.
6. Mr.Premal R. Joshi, learned advocate for the respondent-Electricity Company, while opposing the prayers made in the petition, has submitted that the respondent-Electricity Company maintains a roster and roster category candidates are appointed against the roster requirement, on preferential basis, whereas the general category candidates are appointed as per their turn. It is submitted that the upper age-limit for general category candidates, for appointment as Electrical Assistant, is 35 years, and for reserved category candidates it is 40 years. Candidates whose names are in the priority list are appointed only against a clear vacancy. If a candidate has crossed the upper age-limit of 35 years, or 40 years, as the case may be, and he is not appointed for want of vacancy, his name is omitted from the list. It can happen that candidates are not appointed for a long period of time due to want of vacancy and in such cases they become overage when their turn comes. Page 4 of 8
C/SCA/14995/2012 JUDGMENT 6.1 That the petitioner is a general category
candidate and has crossed the upper age-limit of 35 years on 31.05.2012 whereas, according to the priority list, his turn would come on 24.09.2012; that is, after he attains the age of 35 years. Since the petitioner has crossed the upper age limit, his name has not been considered for appointment. 6.2 It is submitted that in similar cases, this Court has held that once an apprentice has crossed the upper age-limit, the said age-limit cannot be extended and those persons who have become age-barred and whose names are on the priority list, would have no right for appointment.
7. In support of the above submissions, reliance has been placed upon the following judgments :
(a) Judgment dated 16.10.1997 passed in Special Civil Application No.5302/1997.
(b) Judgment dated 07.11.2012 passed in Special Civil Application No.11554/2012 and connected matters.
Page 5 of 8
C/SCA/14995/2012 JUDGMENT 8. This Court has heard learned counsel for the
respective parties, perused the averments made in the petition and other documents on record.
9. There is no dispute regarding the fact that the petitioner is a general category candidate, for whom the upper age limit is 35 years. It is also an admitted fact that the petitioner has crossed the upper age limit. The case of the petitioner is that his name was on the priority list and that would give him a right to appointment. According to the petitioner, the fact that the Electricity Company did not appoint the petitioner, cannot be taken to his disadvantage. The petitioner has also asserted that persons whose names have been figured below him in the priority list have been granted appointments.
10. It may be kept in mind that the petitioner is not a candidate selected in any recruitment process, but is an apprentice. An apprentice is, at best, a trainee. Section-22 of the Apprentice Act provides that neither would the employer be under an obligation to offer employment to an apprentice, nor an apprentice would be under an obligation to accept such Page 6 of 8 C/SCA/14995/2012 JUDGMENT employment under the employer. By virtue of the fact that the name of the petitioner is on the priority list would, in the view of this Court, confer no right upon him for appointment. It is settled law that even in cases of regular recruitment, a selected candidate has no indefeasible right for appointment, merely by virtue of the fact that his name is on the select list. The position of the petitioner cannot even be said to be at par with that of a selected candidate. As per the vacancy position, the turn of the petitioner for appointment would have come on 24.09.2012, after he crossed the upper age-limit on 31-5-2012. It is for that reason that persons below him in the priority list have been given appointments, as they were not over-age when the particular vacancies arose.
11. The case of the petitioner is covered by the judgment dated 07.11.2012, passed in Special Civil Application No.11554/2012 and connected matters, in which case this Court (Coram : K.S.Jhaveri, J.) has, after discussing the relevant provisions of law and the judgments of the Supreme Court, rejected the petitions of similarly situated persons. This Court is Page 7 of 8 C/SCA/14995/2012 JUDGMENT informed by the learned advocate for the respondent
-Electricity Company that the said judgment has attained finality.
12. In view of the above and in accordance with the principles of law stated in the above judgment, this Court is of the considered view that there is no merit in the case of the petitioner, which deserves to be rejected. It is, accordingly, rejected.
13. Rule is discharged. There shall be no orders as to costs.
(SMT. ABHILASHA KUMARI, J.) ARG Page 8 of 8