Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. It is submitted by the applicant, who appeared in person, that pursuant to the directions given by this Tribunal, respondents passed order dated 10.8.2011 (page 16) by stating that they give preference to the Apprentices Trainees trained by the Railways.

5. Applicant has challenged this order, on the ground that it is not open to the respondents to give preference to the Apprentice of Railways by ignoring the Apprentice Trainee, who had done training from the Government of India Press at Mayapuri. He has placed reliance on two judgments, i.e.:-

12. As far as 1st relief is concerned, applicant has neither placed on record any common seniority list nor any such Scheme which stipulates that common seniority list is required to be prepared of apprentices who have passed out from different Institutes nor he has placed on record any Notification calling for applications from open market by the Railways, therefore, it is wrong to allege that he is senior-most.

13. Applicant heavily relied on the judgment of Honble Supreme Court in the case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Another Vs. U.P. Parivahan Nigam Shishukha Berozgar Sangh and Others reported in AIR 1995 SC 1115 particularly para 12 to state that since he had done apprenticeship at earlier point of time, he should have been given preference over the Apprentice Trainees of Railways who had passed the Apprenticeship in subsequent years.

What is indeed required is to see that the nation gets the benefit of time, money and energy spent on the trainees, which would be so when they are employed in preference to non-trained direct recruits. This would also meet the legitimate expectations of the trainees.
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.
(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.

16. Perusal of above would show the direction to maintain list of persons trained year-wise was given to the concerned institute. No direction was given to the Central Government to maintain integrated seniority list of all the Institutes of the apprentices obviously because Honble Supreme Court was dealing with the apprentices of one particular Institute viz. The U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, therefore, the contention of the applicant that he was senior to those apprentices who were appointed as Group D Substitute in Railways is without any merit. Because he had done his apprenticeship from a different Institute, the question of seniority did not arise, therefore, his contention that he is senior to other apprentices has no merit. The same is accordingly rejected.