Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

In the selection process, other things being equal i.e. marks being equal, trained ex- Trade apprentices of the recruiting Ordnance Factory and sister Ordnance Factories shall be given preference in the order in which they are stated.

(i) In between the trained ex-Trade Apprentices of the recruiting Ordnance Factory, preference shall be given to those who are senior i.e. if two or more ex- Trade apprentices secure the same marks then preference shall be given on the basis of seniority. Seniority of ex- Trade apprentices of the recruiting Ordnance Factory shall be decided on the basis of OFB's letter No. 13/08/03-A/HRD dated 15/17-12-2003 and the relevant portion is reproduced below:-

9. The Full Bench decision of this Court in Arvind Gautam (supra), considered as to whether an apprentice is not required to take a competitive test. Rejecting the case of the apprentice, the Full Bench was of the view that competitive examination has not been exempted by the Supreme Court's judgment in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation (supra). Paragraph 6 and 9 of Arvind Gautam's case (supra) is extracted:-

"6. In our view, the expression "other things being equal" in paragraph 12 and absence of exemption from competitive test in the said paragraph, leads to the conclusion that all persons (including the apprentices) have to appear in the competitive test, as may be prescribed in respect of the particular selection, and if after the competitive test, any apprentice trainee gets equal marks than a non-apprentice candidate, then only preference is to be given to the said apprentice trainee."

11. Reliance has been placed by learned counsel appearing for the Railways trained apprentices on the judgment of this Court passed in the case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Another v. U.P. Parivahan Nigam Shishukhs Berozgar Sangh and Others. In Para 12 of the judgement it has been held that all other things being equal, the trained apprentices should be given preference upon direct apprentices. This judgment does not help the appellants at all. What has been held is that if the non-Railway trained apprentice is equal to the Railways trained apprentice on merit, then preference can be given to the Railways trained apprentice. The word "preference" does not mean that the Railways trained apprentice will have an exclusive right to the exclusion of all others to be considered for appointment. Both the Tribunal and the High Court were justified in deciding this issue against the Railways and in favour of the original applicants."

(d) Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order of the Tribunal is valid?

30. The inference drawn by the Tribunal in paragraphs 8, 9, 10 and 11 that on being selected by National Concil for Vocational Training to award certificate under the Act, 1961, candidates have legitimate expection and thus have preference in employment over the direct recruits, in the Ordnance Factory where they undergone apprenticeship. This finding of the Tribunal is not referable to any of the provisions of the Recruitment Rules, 1994. Use of the word ''preference' in clause 5(C) of the Annexure to the policy decision dated 06.01.2011 does not mean that such trained apprentices will have an exclusive right to the exclusion of all others to be considered for appointment. It provides that in the selection process, other things being equal, i.e. marks being equal, trained ex- Trade apprentices of the recruiting Ordnance Factory and sister Ordnance Factories shall be given preference in the order in which they are stated. In other words, if two or more ex Trade apprentices secure the same marks then preference shall be given on the basis of seniority and for this purpose the Ex-TA who has passed NCTVT examination in earlier batch (NCTVT) shall be senior to the Ex-TA passed in subsequent batch. Thus, the impugned order of the Tribunal drawing inference of preference and treating it as a right of the respondent-candidates to get employment as "Semi-Skilled Workman" without facing selection process to the exclusion of all others, is incorrect, unsustainable and contrary to the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnatka vs. Umadevi (supra). That apart, the Central Government has now amended policy in this regard by policy decision dated 09.05.2016 in line with Section 22 of the Act, 1961 making "Provision of granting five extra marks to Ex-Trade Apprentices in the final merit list of the written examination conducted for a total of 100 marks". The advertisement being notifications dated 20.06.2015 to 26.06.2015 are not in conflict with the Recruitment Rules, 1994 and the aforequoted policy decision of the Ordnance Factory Board and, therefore, the Tribunal has committed a manifest error of law and fact to quash it.