Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

further be directed to investigate the incident(s) of malpractices and/or irregularities committed during the course of written examination with intent to assist the candidates having N.T.C. (I.T.I.) certificates only; through an independent Board of Inquiry comprising of Officers whose integrity are beyond doubt.

7) That, the Respondent 4 further be directed to confirm the applicability of Government of India's Policy Decision; issued vide its letter No. DGET 50 (2)/96- AP dated 20th February 1996 and 16th March 1996 on the matter of giving preference to trained apprentices in employment over direct recruits, is still in force as on date of the instant direct recruitment.

"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.
(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 Vs. N. Hargopal [(1987) 3 SCC 308] would permit this. 
              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."

4. The applicants also relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in M. Sabarinathan Vs. The General Manager, Ordnance Factory Trichy & Ors. in Writ Appeal(MD) No. 316 of 2007 decided on 14.12.2007 which noted that the Full Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Excise Superintendent, Malkapatnam Vs. K.B.N. Visweswara Rao [1996(6) Supreme Court Cases 2016] had overuled the decision in the Hargopal's case cited in the previous ruling of the Hon'ble Apex Court. They held in conclusion "that the requisitioning department should call for the list of eligible candidates from employment exchange and the apprentice department or undertaking or establishment shall invite candidates by publication in newspapers and other media, and then consider the cases of all the candidates, who have applied, and, in the selection process, other things being equal, trained apprentices shall be given preference". This decision became final with the dismissal of the SLP filed by respondents. The applicants have also cited, in support, a letter issued by respondent No.2 in reference No. 800/SRO/A/I/245 dt. 21.10.2011(Annexure R-1) which states as below:-

18. The applicants have cited the decision in OA Nos. 89 & 109 of 2013 and OA No. 385 of 2014 to state that holding a Trade Test was in violation of the Recruitment Rules, although this has been done in consequence of the directions of respondent No.1 in letter supra dt. 15.06.2012. However, the factum of the Trade Test has not been cited as a ground for grievance in the OA and is not considered as relevant for the present purposes.

19. The applicants have argued by reference to a citation that the higher qualification should be given preference. They state that NAC apprentices should be preferred to NTC holders. It is noted that the law that has emerged finally by virtue of various citations of the Hon'ble Apex Court as discussed and presented by the applicants is that other things be equal, the apprentices should be preferred for appointment. This has been reflected in the terms of selection by the respondents in their detailed instructions enclosed as Annexure A-5 at Para 9(4) which states "in case of other things are equal i.e. marks are equal, preference will be given to trained ex-trade apprentices of Ordnance Factory Organization." From the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in M. Sabarinathan Vs. The General Manager, Ordnance Factory Trichy & Ors.(supra) and for which the SLP was dismissed, apprentices from organizations other than Ordnance Factory were also allowed. Therefore, the applicants can have no grievance unless they are able to establish that an apprentice who secured the same marks as an NTC holder was not preferred and no evidence has been provided to support such a presumption.