Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. The learned Single Judge found that there was no condition in the contract of apprenticeship to the effect that appointment shall be given to the appellants after successful completion of their apprenticeship training therefore, they cannot claim appointment as a matter of right. The learned Single Judge observed that the circulars issued by the Government of Rajasthan and the Government of India only provides that while making direct recruitment against the existing vacancies, the persons who have acquired the training as apprentices shall be given preference vis a vis other persons on all other things being equal. After due consideration of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in U.P.S.R.T.C.'s case (supra), the learned Single Judge opined that even on the basis of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said matter, the appellants cannot claim appointment as a matter of right. The learned Single Judge observed that in the said decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also directed only for preferential treatment to a trained apprentice . Accordingly, the writ petitions preferred by the appellants have been dismissed.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent urged that in view of the provisions of Section 22 of the Apprentice Act, 1961 ( in short "the Act of1961" hereinafter) in absence of any condition in the contract providing for the offer of appointment to the apprentice trainees, the appellants cannot claim offer of appointment as a matter of right. The learned counsel submitted that adhering to the circulars issued by the Government of Rajasthan on other things being equal , the apprentice trainees are being given preference. Accordingly, it is submitted by the learned counsel that the appellants have not been able to make out any case in their favour therefore, the writ petitions have rightly been dismissed by the learned Single Judge. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in U.P.State Electricity Board vs. Shiv Mohan Singh & Anr, (2004) 8 SCC, 402.

9. The similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in U.P.S.R.T.C.'s case supra. However, in the said matter , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down that while dealing with the claim of the trainees to get employment after successful completion of their training following should be kept in mind:-

"(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.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, i 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."