Bombay High Court
Prajwalit Tularam Gaikwad And Ors vs Hindustan Retroleum Corporation Ltd. ... on 24 August, 2018
Bench: R. M. Savant, K. K. Sonawane
(909) WP 3767-18.doc
Amk
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 3767 OF 2018
Prajwalit Tularam Gaikwad & Ors. .. Petitioners
Vs.
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. & Ors. .. Respondents
Mr. Rakesh Upadhye a/w. Mr. Subhash Gutte for the Petitioners.
Mr. S. K. Talsania, Sr. Advocate a/w. Mr. Lancy D'souza, Ms. Deepika
Agarwal, Mr. V. M. Parkar for the Respondent No.1.
Mr. Anil Yadav a/w. Mr. N. R. Prajapati, Mr. Upendra Lokegaonkar for
Respondent Nos.2 to 4.
CORAM : R. M. SAVANT & K. K. SONAWANE, JJ.
DATE : 24 th
AUGUST, 2018.
P. C. :
1. The above Writ Petition has been filed seeking directions to the Respondent-Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. to consider the Petitioners for absorption/appointment on regular post Grade "A" Officer. The further direction sought is that the Respondent i.e. the HPCL be directed to set the policy of absorption/recruitment of Graduate Apprentice as per Apprentices Act, 1961. During the pendency of the above Petition, it seems that the HPCL came out with the policy for recruitment of the persons who have been appointed as apprentices. The said policy is comprised in the document which is dated 01.06.2018. Upon the said policy being formulated by the HPCL, the Petition was amended and the challenge has been raised to the said policy as a result of which prayer 1/5 (909) WP 3767-18.doc clause 35(d)(i) has been incorporated for seeking quashment of the said policy dated 01.06.2018. The Petitioners have also sought declaration that the said policy is not applicable to the Petitioners.
2. It is undisputed position that the Petitioners herein were appointed as apprentices pursuant to the advertisement which was styled as 'Engagement of Graduate Apprentice Trainees (Engineering) as per the Apprentices Act, 1961. The said advertisement was issued some time around July-August, 2016. The said advertisement makes it clear that the appointment was for the period of one year as per the provisions of the Apprentices Act. The said appointment was governed by the terms and conditions of appointment which are referable to Rule 6 of the Apprentices Rules, 1992. In the context of the present Petition, Clause 2 of the terms and conditions is relevant and is reproduced hereinunder:
"2. It shall not be obligatory on the part of the employer to offer an employment to the apprentice on completion of period of his apprenticeship training in his establishment nor shall it be obligatory on the part of the apprentice to accept an employment under the employer.
Provided that if there is any recruitment, employer shall formulate its own policy for recruiting any apprentice who has completed the period of apprenticeship training in his establishment in terms of sub-section (1) of section (22) of the Act."
Hence, by Clause 2 it was made clear to the Petitioners that it would not be obligatory on the part of the employer to offer an employment to 2/5 (909) WP 3767-18.doc the apprentice on completion of period of his apprenticeship training in his establishment and conversely there was also no obligation on the apprentice to accept employment under the employer. It is further provided by the said Clause 2 that the employer shall formulate his policy for recruitment of apprentices. The essence of the said Clause 2 is from amended Section 22 of the said Act which has come into force on 22.12.2014. Insofar as the policy dated 06.04.2018 announced by HPCL is concerned, suffice it would be to state that the said policy grants age relaxation of one year to the apprentices, as also grace marks to the extent of 5% over and above the marks obtained at the GATE examination by the apprentice.
3. The aforesaid policy is sought to be challenged by the Petitioners by contending that the age relaxation granted is inadequate and that there should have been age relaxation of more number of years, and that the requirement of passing the GATE examination was also not necessary as most of the Petitioners have passed the GATE examination. Hence, it was sought to be submitted on behalf of the Petitioners by the learned Counsel Mr. Upadhye that the policy could have been framed by the HPCL in a particular manner so as not to affect the Petitioners chances for seeking employment under the HPCL. It was also sought to be contended on behalf of the Petitioners that the said policy cannot be made applicable to the Petitioners as the policy has come into force in June, 2018 whereas the 3/5 (909) WP 3767-18.doc process of recruitment by the advertisement in question has started in the year 2017. Prima facie, having regard to the provisions of Section 22 of the said Act, as also having regard to the policy, which has now been formulated by the HPCL and considering the limited scope of judicial review in respect of a policy decision, we do not find that the Petitioners have made out any case for grant of any interim relief or continuation thereof. The Petitioners would be entitled to participate in the process of selection initiated by the Respondent No.1 only if they comply with the said policy or get over the hurdle of the said policy. We are also unable to accept the contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners that the said policy cannot be made applicable to the Petitioners and that the Petitioners are entitled to selection dehors the policy.
4. Hence, though we find that the above Petition requires closer scrutiny. No case for grant of interim relief or continuation of any ad- interim relief already granted is made out. The appointment of the candidates who have been selected cannot be stopped at the behest of the Petitioners who are not eligible granting such a relief would prejudice a public corporation like the Respondent No.1. Hence, Rule, to issue ad- interim relief granted vide order dated 20.04.2018 would stand vacated. We make it clear that the Respondent No.1-HPCL would be entitled to issue appointment letters to the selected candidates pursuant to the selection process.
4/5
(909) WP 3767-18.doc
5. Though, initially the learned Counsel for the Petitioners Mr. Upadhye sought to make a grievance that there is violation of the said order dated 20.04.2018 by the Respondent No.1, he did not press the said issue thereafter and proceeded to make his submissions.
6. The learned Counsel Mr. S. K. Talsania waives notice on behalf of the Respondent No.1.
[K. K. SONAWANE, J.] [R. M. SAVANT, J.] Digitally signed by Arjun Arjun Machhindra Machhindra Kadam Kadam Date: 2018.08.28 11:57:10 +0530 5/5