Allahabad High Court
Jagdamba Misra & Others vs Union Of India & Others on 27 March, 2012
Author: Sunita Agarwal
Bench: Sunita Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Court No. - 36 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 26180 of 2001 Petitioner :- Jagdamba Misra & Others Respondent :- Union Of India & Others Petitioner Counsel :- K.C. Sinha Respondent Counsel :- Lalji Sinha Hon'ble Satya Poot Mehrotra,J.
Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.
The present Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners, inter-alia, praying for quashing the Judgment and Order dated 2.3.2001 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (in short " the Tribunal") whereby various Original Applications, namely, Original Application No. 1341 of 1996, Original Application No. 393 of 1997, Original Application No. 785 of 1997, Original Application No. 1068 of 1998, Original Application No. 370 of 1998, Original Application No. 173 of 1998 and Original Application No. 907 of 1998 filed by the petitioners and others, were dismissed.
From a perusal of the Writ Petition and the Annexures thereto, it transpires that the petitioners were Degree/Diploma-holders in Mechanical and Electrical Trades and had undergone the prescribed training under the Apprentices Act, 1961 (hereinafter also referred to as "the Act"). Consequent upon successful completion of training under the Act, the petitioners sought employment in the establishment of the respondents in pursuance of various Employment Notices issued by the respondents from time to time.
Having failed to get such employment, the petitioners herein along-with others filed the aforementioned Original Applications before the Tribunal.
As noted above, the Tribunal by the Judgment and Order dated 2.3.2001 (Annexure 12 to the Writ Petition) dismissed the said Original Applications. The Tribunal rejected the contention raised on behalf of the petitioners that the petitioners being trained apprentices should have been favourably considered for appointment even without undergoing the written test prescribed under the relevant Rules, Regulations etc. The Tribunal further rejected the contention that in view of reservation in matter of appointment for the trained apprentices, the petitioners were entitled to get appointment, and they were not required to undergo the written test prescribed under the relevant Rules, Regulations etc. Thereupon, the petitioners have filed the present Writ Petition seeking the reliefs, as mentioned above.
We have heard Shri Sunil, holding brief for Shri K.C. Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioners, and perused the record.
It is submitted by Shri Sunil, holding brief for Shri K.C. Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners having completed apprenticeship training under the Act, were not required to undergo the procedure for selection prescribed under the relevant Rules, Regulations etc. and they were entitled to get employment in view of their apprenticeship training.
Reliance has been placed by Shri Sunil, holding brief for Shri K.C. Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioners on the decision of the Supreme Court in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. U.P. Parivahan Nigam Shishuksha Berozgar Sangh and others, AIR 1995 S.C. 1115: 1995 (2) SCC 1. Referring to paragraph 13 of the said decision, it is submitted that the persons who have completed apprenticeship training are not required to appear in the Written Test, if any, provided by the relevant Rules, Regulations etc..
We have considered the submissions made by Shri Sunil, holding brief for Shri K.C. Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioners and we find ourselves unable to accept the same.
Paragraphs 12 and 13 of the Judgment of the Supreme Court in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation (in short " U.P.S.R.T.C.") case (Supra) are reproduced below:
"12. 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.Hargopal, 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 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.
13. In so far as the cases at hand are concerned, we find that the Corporation filed an additional affidavit in C.A. Nos. 4347-4354 of 1990 (as desired by the Court) on 20th October, 1992 giving position regarding vacancies in the post of conductors and clerks. If such posts be still vacant, we direct the Corporation to act in accordance with what has been stated above regarding the entitlement of trainees. We make it clear that while considering the cases of the trainees for giving employment in suitable posts, what has been laid down in the Service Regulations of the Corporation shall be followed, except that the trainees would not be required to appear in any written examination, if any, provided by the Regulations. It is apparent that before considering the cases of the trainees, the requirement of their names being sponsored by the employment exchange would not be insisted upon. In so far as the age requirement is concerned, the same shall be relaxed as indicated above."
(Emphasis supplied) A careful reading of the above-quoted paragraphs of the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the U.P.S.R.T.C. case (Supra) shows that while paragraph 12 of the Judgment is of general applicability, paragraph 13 of the Judgment is confined to the cases under consideration before the Supreme Court pertaining to the Corporation in question, namely, U.P.S.R.T.C. (see paragraph 2 of the Judgment).
In Arvind Gautam Vs. State of U.P. and Others, 1999 (2) UPLBEC 1397 (Full Bench), a Full Bench of this Court laid down that directions as contained in paragraph 12 of the Judgment of the Supreme Court of the U.P.S.R.T.C. case (Supra) were not confined to U.P.S.R.T.C. alone but were applicable to all departments and corporations, but the directives contained in paragraph 13 of the said Judgment would apply strictly to the persons whose cases came-up for consideration before the Apex Court in the said matter, and not to others.
The Full Bench also laid down that the expression "other things being equal" in paragraph 12 and absence of exemption from competitive test in the said paragraph, leads to the conclusion "that all persons (including the apprentices) have to appear in the competitive test, as may be prescribed in respect of the particular selection, and if, after the competitive test any apprentice trainee gets equal marks than a non-apprentice candidate, then only preference is to be given to the said apprentice trainee".
The Full Bench Judgment of this Court in Arvind Gautam case (Supra) was approved by the Supreme Court in U.P. Rajya Vidyut Parishad Apprentice Welfare Association and Another vs. State of U.P.and Others, (2000) 5 SCC 438.
In view of the Full Bench Judgment of this Court in Arvind Gautam case (Supra), it is evident that the trained apprentices also would have to undergo the same selection process which others would be required to undergo at the time of recruitment. However, if after undergoing the same selection process, a trained apprentice gets marks equal to those obtained by non-apprentice candidate, then the trained apprentice would be given preference.
Hence, the petitioners herein, who were trained apprentices, were required to undergo the same process of selection as was applicable in this case in accordance with the relevant Rules, Regulations etc. In other words, the same process of selection was to be undertaken by the petitioners as was undertaken by non-apprentice candidates. The petitioners could not exempted from appearing in Written Test, if the same was required to be taken by the candidates for getting selected for appointment for particular post.
In our view, the Tribunal has given cogent and valid reasons for rejecting the contention raised on behalf of the petitioners that they were not required to undergo the Written Test as per the requirements of the relevant Rules, Regulations etc., and we agree with the reasons and conclusions of the Tribunal.
As regards the contention raised on behalf of the petitioners that there was reservation in matters of appointment in favour of the persons, who had completed apprenticeship training, the Tribunal has pointed out that such reservation would not mean that the persons, who had completed apprenticeship training, would not be required to appear in the Written Test as per the requirements of the relevant Rules, Regulations etc. We are in agreement with the reasons and conclusions of the Tribunal in this regard.
The Tribunal has further referred to the Circular Letter dated 26.8.1996 which shows that no exemption has been given to the persons, who have completed apprenticeship training, from undergoing the normal procedure for selection for appointment.
In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the Writ Petition filed by the petitioners lacks merits, and the same is liable to be dismissed.
The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed.
However, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there will be no order to costs.
Order Date :- 27.3.2012 Ajeet