Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Rajesh Vyas vs State on 5 December, 2017
Author: Ashok Kumar Gaur
Bench: Ashok Kumar Gaur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT
JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3135 / 2001
Rajesh Vyas S/o Shri G.L. Vyas, R/o 1-B-77, Shiv Shakti Colony,
Shastri Nagar, Jaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
The State of Rajasthan Through the Director, Govt. Press, Jaipur.
----Respondent
_____________________________________________________ For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S.P.Mathur, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr.Niyaz Ahmed on behalf of Mr.Shiv Raj Singh, Adv.
_____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR GAUR Order 05/12/2017 The present petition has been filed for seeking a direction to give preferential treatment to the petitioner i.e. Apprentice for considering his case for appointment on the post of Printer Grade- II/Line Operator. The petitioner has further prayed that the vacancies which have been accumulated till the date of filing of the writ petition, should be taken into account and should be filled by way of giving preference to Apprentices.
The respondents have filed reply and it has been specifically mentioned that advertisement was issued on 19.02.1992 for the post of Assistant Line Operator and petitioner also applied for the same post along with other candidates. The respondents have taken a plea that petitioner was not selected and he was declared fail, and proper communication was sent to him by the respondents on 27.07.1992. The respondents have further taken a (2 of 2) [CW-3135/2001] plea that according to provisions of the Apprentices Act, 1961, Government is not bound to appoint every trained apprentice.
The respondents have also taken an objection that writ petition has been filed after an inordinate delay of 8 years and petitioners having participated in the selection process, cannot challenge the selection, which have been made after advertising the vacancies.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. S.P.Mathur, has submitted that appointments have been made long back, yet suitable direction may be given to the respondents to give preference to the Apprentices, who had undergone the requisite training.
In the opinion of the Court, the relief claimed by the petitioner in the writ petition cannot be granted after a lapse of 19 years from the selection which was held in the year 1992. The Court is also conscious of the fact that Apprentices undergoes a particular period of training and get themselves equipped for doing a particular job, however, only by way of becoming trainee/apprentice, no guarantee can be given by any employer to offer such person employment.
The present writ petition does require any interference and the same is dismissed accordingly.
(ASHOK KUMAR GAUR)J. NK/17