Telangana High Court
D. Anjaiah, Khammam Dist. vs The Telangana State Power Generation ... on 10 December, 2024
Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka
Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
WRIT PETITION No. 5308 OF 2012
O R D E R:
Petitioner questions the inaction of respondents in awarding weightage marks (10) in view of Apprenticeship Training undergone by him while extending such weightage marks for service to contract labour 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 highly illegal, arbitrary and violative of Art. 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and also contrary to the Judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Vs. U.P.Parivan NSB Sangh 1. A consequential direction is sought to award weightage marks on par with contract labour.
2. Petitioner claims to have possessed SSC & ITI (Fitter) qualifications with 452 out of 700 marks. Following this, he underwent Apprenticeship Training in KTPS, Palvoncha, with Registered Number 00864 from 08.04.1993 to 07.04.1994. During this period, he completed Trade Test as a regular candidate in April 1994 and received an Apprentice Certificate. 1 AIR 1995 SC 1115 2 Subsequently, he worked as contract labor from 03.02.1997 to 04.03.1998, and again in 2009 and 2010 through contractors M/s L.M.R Constructions and others. Petitioner faced difficulties in producing gate pass copies to verify the contract labour service period, which led to denial of weightage marks for the service experience despite presenting a certificate for the same.
Petitioner applied for the position of Junior Plant Attendant as per Notification dated 05.01.2011, but he was not issued Hall Ticket initially, then he filed Writ Petition No. 33385 of 2011 and as per the interim order dated 16.12.2011, he was issued Hall Ticket No. 400250. Accordingly, he attended the written test held on 18.12. 2011 wherein following marks were awarded:
• ITI (allocation of marks up to 30%): 19.37 • Weightage marks for the date of passing the ITI
qualification up to the date of notification: 10.00 This resulted in a total of 29.37 marks for petitioner. However, petitioner claims that he was were not awarded 10 marks for their service as contract labor, nor for the Apprenticeship Training period. When the petitioner approached the second respondent regarding the issue, they were informed that no 3 weightage marks could be awarded due to a lack of records corroborating the petitioner's service experience.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner Sri G.V. Shivaji submits that petitioner underwent Apprenticeship Training at Kothagudem Thermal Power Station for one year, where his services were utilized in Boiler Operation and Maintenance work as a Boiler Attendant, hence, he should be extended the same weightage as contract labour. He relies on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in U.P. Parivahana NSB Sangh's cae (supra) and submits that apprenticeship-trained candidates should receive preference during regular selections, as they are already trained in the required job functions. According to him, petitioner belongs to OC category and cut-off marks for local candidates in Zone V were 35.24, while the cut-off for non-locals was 39.54; petitioner's actual marks were 29.37 without weightage, but if 10 marks for the apprenticeship period were awarded in the same way as for contract labor, his total would be 39.37 which would place him within the selection zone and above the cut-off mark.
4. This Court vide order dated 28.02.2012 directed that pending further hearing in the matter, petitioner's 4 application for the post of Junior Plant Attendant shall be considered by the respondents, but selection of the candidates shall not be finalised pending further orders. Further, on 03.04.2013 in W.P.M.P.No. 6731 of 2012 directed that petitioner shall be subject to the Trade Test and his result shall also be published without any reference to the pendency of this Writ Petition. However, it shall always be open to respondents to call for a detailed verification of the certificates and qualifications of petitioner. He shall also submit his original ITI Certificate, original hall ticket and on line application.
5. Seeking vacation of order dated 28.02.2012, Ms. V. Uma Devi, learned Standing Counsel for respondents submits that petitioner underwent apprenticeship training at KTPS, Paloncha; he cannot be awarded weightage as review of the Notification dated 05.01.2011 relating to recruitment of Junior Plant Attendants shows that weightage marks are granted only to contract labourers who worked in power stations of AP GENCO. She submits that the judgment in the above case held that when a direct recruitee and an apprentice stand on equal footing, preference should be given to the apprentice. However, this does not imply that contract laborers should be awarded weightage marks in the direct recruitment process. In 5 accordance with the provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970, the Government of Andhra Pradesh issued G.O. Ms. No. 41, dated September 23, 1996, which prohibited engagement of contract labor in 33 categories of employment. Following this prohibition, AP GENCO formulated policies to absorb contract laborers by issuing BP Ms. No. 37, dated 18.05.1997 and BP MS No. 272, dated 31.12.1997 and these provisions differentiate contract labor from apprentices. Learned Standing Counsel clarifies that contract laborers are entitled to weightage marks because of their extended service period with AP GENCO; Respondents implemented a policy of awarding weightage marks of 10 to contract laborers who worked for more than six months and those who have worked for less than six months receive 5 marks. She argues that petitioner's claim is misconceived and that Writ Petition should be dismissed as no weightage marks can be awarded to petitioner for apprenticeship training and at best, he is only entitled to preference in the event that a direct recruitee and an apprentice stand on equal footing, as per the Supreme Court judgment, but this preference does not extend to awarding weightage marks.
6
6. Today, learned Standing Counsel has produced a copy of the tabular form prescribing the cut-off marks for non- locals, locals and the marks if 10 marks weightage is awarded, etcetera, wherein it is mentioned against petitioner in this Writ Petition, who belongs to OC and a local, cut-off mark is 80.31, however, after adding weightage marks, he secured 58.37, hence, he will not come in the zone of consideration. His status was shown as 'not covered'.
7. In view of the said submission, this Court is of the opinion that petitioner does not deserve any consideration. The Writ Petition is therefore, liable to be dismissed.
8. The Writ Petition is accordingly, dismissed. No costs.
9. Consequently, the interim orders dated 28.02.2012 and 03.04.2013 stand vacated.
-------------------------------------
NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J 10th December 2024 ksld