Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. Pending the writ petition in both the cases, this Court did not grant any interim relief.

5. In so far as the prayer in W.P.No.40078 of 2005 claiming preference for the trained apprentice in the employment of the Electricity Board is concerned, the matter is squarely covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in Tamil Nadu Electricity Board -vs- P.Arul and others in Civil Appeal Nos.5285-5325 of 1996 dated 03.10.1996. In the said judgment with reference to the claim for preference, it was observed as follows:-

''This Court has, therefore, clearly laid down that Apprentices/Trainees shall have to go through the process of selection provided under the Service Regulations/Rules. Keeping in view the fact that the Apprentices acquire training under the same management, they are not required to sit in the written test but in a selection where viva-voce test is also provided. It would be necessary for the Apprentices to go through the process of viva-voce. This Court has specifically laid down that a trained apprentice should be given preference  other things being equal  over direct recruits. In a given case an Engineering graduate may be preferred to a diploma holder apprentice. It depends on the Selection Committee and also the regulations /Rules governing the selection.
We are of the view that this Court has clearly laid down that the Apprentice-Trainees have no right to be appointed in preference to other applicants."
(Emphasis Added)

6. After allowing the appeal filed by the respondent Electricity Board, the Supreme Court gave the following direction in the aforesaid judgment, which is as follows:-

''Mr.Parekh, learned counsel for the Board, has informed us that the interviews in this case were held in September 1994. It is thus obvious that the interviews were held before this court delivered the judgment in U.P.State Road Transport's case. Even otherwise, it would not be appropriate to make appointments based on an interview, which was held more than two years back. We, therefore, direct the Board to re-advertise the posts. The fresh applicants along with the old applicants including the apprentices shall be considered afresh by following the selection procedure envisaged under the Regulations. The Board shall complete the process of selection within four months."

13. Even a reference to the Supreme Court judgment will show that it is only in case of a recruitment, the question of considering the case of trained apprentices will arise along with other applicants. In the present case, if the respondent TNEB is wanting candidates only in a two particular trades that cannot be said to be arbitrary or in violation of the earlier order of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court did not give any employment guarantee to the trained apprentices, but on the contrary, it only observed that in case of direct recruitment for any post, the trained apprentices will also be considered along with them and if everything is found equal then the trade apprentices will be preferred. That does not mean that for each and every post for which an advertisement is made, the petitioners irrespective of the trade certificate possessed by them can make a claim for consideration. Though it is contended that the recruitment is for the post of Helper, which is the entry level post, it is open to the respondent TNEB to advertise even to such posts of Helpers, call for particular trade apprenticeship especially when recruitments are made for distribution circles and there is need for persons trained in particular trades namely Electrician and Wireman. There is no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the respondent Board.