Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

"In the background of what has been noted above, we stated that the following would be kept in ming 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 other direct recruits.
(2) For this, a trainee would not be required to get his name sponsored by any employment exchange. The decision of this Court in Union of India v. N. Hargopal, , would permit this.
(3) If age bar would come in the way of the trainee, the same would be relaxed in accordance with what is stated in this regard, if any in the service rule concerned. If the service rule be silent on this aspect, relaxation to the extent of the period for which the apprentice had undergone training would be given.
(4) The trainining institute concerned 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."

15. A reading of the above, it is abundantly clear that the trained apprentices would only be given preference over other candidates, if other things being equal. In the said decision, no where it is indicated that the trained apprentices shall not be subjected to written test or oral interview along with others in the recruitment process.

16. Sri Surender Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner has taken me to para 13 of the said decision of the Supreme Court, which is as under:

"..... We make it clear that while considering the cases of the trainees for giving employment in suitable posts, what has been laid down in Service Regulations of the Corporation shall be followed, except that the trainees would not be required to appear in any written examination, if any provided by the Regulations."
"Other things being equal, a trained apprentice should be given preference over other direct recruits."

As seen from the counter filed by the respondent-Board the petitioner secured 11 marks in the written test as against 100 marks though the qualifying marks were prescribed as 35. On the basis of the interim direction granted by this Court, the petitioner participated in the oral interview though he was not qualified to attend the same and he secured only 2 marks as against the prescribed 12 marks. The respondent-Board, in this background, is justified is not calling the petitioner for interview as the petitioner did not even get the minimum percentage of marks to be qualified for the oral interview. Even in pursuance of the interim direction granted by this Court, though the petitioner attended the oral interview, he could only secure 2 marks out of 12. Therefore, by any stretch of imagination, it cannot be said that the petitioner stood on par with others in written test and in oral interview and he should be given preference over others as he being a trained apprentice.