Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(iv) That in a case titled as U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and another Vs. U.P. Parivahan Nigam Shishuksh Berozgar Sangh & Ors., reported as 1995(1) SLR 609, Honble Supreme Court has held that preference should be given to the trained apprentices over the direct recruits. In U.P. Rajya Vidyut Parishad Apprentice Welfare Association & Another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. Reported as 2000(4) SLR, 550, it has been further held that though preference should be given to trained apprentices but they are also not immune from facing open competition with direct recruits and going through the procedure of examination/interview. This being the settled legal position, the action of the respondents in restricting the process of engaging/forming panel of substitutes only out of Act Apprentices of RCF, Kapurthala is discriminatory towards apprentices of other establishments working under Railways.
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. Haragopal, AIR 1987 SC 1227, 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 concerned service rule. 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 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.