Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(1)
Other things being equal, a trained apprentice should be given preference over direct recruits.
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. Hargopal, AIR 1987 SC 1227, would permit this.
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.
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.
It may first be noted that the appellants are not the apprentices/trainees. They have not received training at the cost of the State. In our view, the above referred observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court do not cover the cases like the present one. Further, even in the case of apprentice/trainee the only relaxation that the Court recommended was to the extent of the period of training. The claim for relaxation in the upper age limit by five years is not supported by this judgment also.