Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

9.We have said so as reference to that circular shows that all it has done is to lay down the procedure for the selection of the apprentices, which did not require the apprentices to undergo any written examination for selection and their routing through employment exchange was done away with. Something was said about the age also. No promise of employment can be read in this circular which is of 21-12- 1977. We would say the same about the memo of the Directorate of Training and Employment of the State of U.P dated 21-9-1977 as it falls short of any promise of employment, because what it says is that full efforts should be made to provide the trainees with service. In this memo, what had been stated in para 2 of the Government of India's letter dated 31-8-1978 had been quoted in which it was mentioned that the scheme of training had been introduced to promote chances of employment of educated unemployed persons; and that if employers would not provide employment to the qualified apprentices the same would amount to destruction of developed human resources. It is because of this that the Government of India expressed the desire that "other things being equal trained apprentices should be given preference in case of employment".

10.For a promise to be enforceable, the same has, however, to be clear and unequivocal. We do not read any such promise in the aforesaid three documents and we, therefore, hold that at the call of promissory estoppel, the direction in question could not have been given by the High Court. But then, we are left in no doubt that the Government of India did desire that preference should be given to the trained apprentices and it is because of this that the State Government stated in its letter No. 735/38-6-16 (T)-79 dated 12-11-1979 that where such apprentices are available, direct recruitment should not be made. Indeed, the Government of India in its letter dated 23-3-1983 even desired reservation of 50 per cent vacancies for apprentice trainees.

(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 v. N. Hargopal1 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 training institute concerned would maintain a list of the persons trained yearwise. 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.

13.Insofar as the cases at hand are concerned, we find that the Corporation filed an additional affidavit in CA Nos. 4347-4354 of 1990 (as desired by the Court) on 20-10-1992 giving position regarding vacancies in the posts of conductors and clerks. If such posts be still vacant, we direct the Corporation to act in accordance with what has been stated above regarding the entitlement of the trainees. We make it clear that while considering the cases of the trainees for giving employment in suitable posts, what has been laid down in the 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. It is apparent that before considering the cases of the trainees, the requirement of their names being sponsored by the employment exchange would not be insisted upon. Insofar as the age requirement is concerned, the same shall be relaxed as indicated above.