Gujarat High Court
Nazirahmed vs Uttar on 20 December, 2011
Author: K.M.Thaker
Bench: K.M.Thaker
Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/16284/2011 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 16284 of 2011
=========================================================
NAZIRAHMED
KASAMBHAI SUMARA - Petitioner(s)
Versus
UTTAR
GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LTD THRO THE MANAGING DIRECTOR & 1 -
Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
GK RATHOD for
Petitioner(s) : 1,MR MUKESH H RATHOD for Petitioner(s) : 1,
None
for Respondent(s) : 1 -
2.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER
Date
: 20/12/2011
ORAL
ORDER
1. Heard learned advocate Mr. G. K. Rathod appearing for the petitioner. While admitting the settled position, the petitioner cannot ask as a matter of right, employment on completion of apprenticeship period.
2. The learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has completed apprenticeship, however, the respondent has not considered petitioner's case for employment though the case of other persons who also completed apprenticeship in similar situation as the petitioner was have been considered.
3. He submitted that the petitioner has already made request/representation to the respondent which is not decided.
4. Even according to the petitioner he worked on apprenticeship contract and as an apprentice under the Act and he has completed the apprenticeship period.
5. It is settled position of law that a person who completes the apprenticeship period as an apprentice in nay trade has no right to claim employment, in light of completion of apprenticeship training, and that therefore, the request of the petitioner does not deserve to be entertained. The petitioner cannot claim, as a matter of right, that his case for employment must be considered.
6. This is so far as merits of the claim is concerned. Now, the document on which the petitioner is relying i.e. Annexure-J. The said document appears to have been issued by some officer of a corporation named Gujarat Energy Transmission Corporation Ltd. whereas the petitioner claimes employment with UGVCL which is altogether different establishment/employer.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has some how insisted that the two establishments are one and the same, though it prima facie does not appear so.
8. Be that as it may, the only request made by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent may consider representation my by the petitioner.
9. Therefore, while reiterating the aforesaid settled position of law so far as apprentice are concerned, the petition is disposed of with the observations that it would be open to the respondent authorities to consider, if considered appropriate, the representation made by the applicant-petitioner. If and when any decision on representation is taken, the respondent may communicate the same to the applicant-petitioner if he is selected.
10. With the aforesaid clarification, the petition stands disposed of.
(K.M.THAKER, J.) (ila) Top