Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. It is stated that the method of selection is by a Committee of three seniors officials of TANGEDCO, who verify the certificate of the petitioners/candidates, who have been sponsored by the Board of Apprenticeship Training and after taking oral interview, they are selected to undergo apprentices training. Thus the endeavour of the petitioner is to state that there is a process of selection of apprentices and it is not mechanically filled up based upon the list forwarded by the Board of Apprenticeship Training. It is submitted that Section 22 of the Act is very crucial, which had undergone an amendment in 2014, which was published in the Gazette of India dated 18.12.2014. According to the petitioners, prior to the amendment, the provision of Section 22 of the Act did not guarantee or provide for any right to the apprentices for securing employment in the relevant establishment. However, TANGEDCO was recruiting apprentices whenever vacancies arises in various posts notwithstanding the fact that there is no obligation under the Act whenever regular vacancies is notified for recruitments. It is further submitted that the TANGEDCO was following a pattern of calling for names in the ratio of 1:5 from Employment Exchange and separate notification will be issued to Ex-apprentices simultaneously. It is the submission that though there is no written policy for recruitment of Ex-apprentices in the 1st respondent establishment, the 1st respondent was giving preference for ex-apprentices when regular vacancies are filled up. The main grievance of the trained apprentice is that the TANGEDCO has taken a decision to conduct a written examination for recruitment by referring to and stating that it is in implementation of the judgment of the Honourable Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1027 of 2013 dated 09.06.2014. The petitioners have no grievance in TANGEDCO adopting such procedure by calling for applications from the open market and to require those open market candidates to undergo written examination. But would state that such pattern of selection cannot be made applicable to Ex-apprentices as they have acquired a right for consideration of appointment as per the amended provisions of Section 22 of the Act.

11. Mr.G.Anandkumar, learned counsel appearing for the trained apprentices, who are Diploma holders adopted the arguments of the other petitioners.

12. Mr.K.Venkataramani, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for M/s.k.Varalakshmi, learned counsel for TANGEDCO submitted that the only issue to be decided in these cases is whether the apprentices are entitled for exemption from written examination. In this regard, the qualification prescribed in the impugned notification and the procedure for selection was elaborately referred to. It is submitted that the Regulations clearly state that the trained apprentices would be granted preference provided other things be equal and they cannot be placed at an higher pedestal. It is further submitted that the case of the petitioners is largely based on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of UP State Road Transport Corporation and another (supra), but the said decision was clarified in the case of U.P.Raj Viduyut Parishad Apprentice Welfare Association & Anr., reported in 2000 3 SCR 1201, which was followed in the recent decision in the case of Public Service Commission, Uttaranchal vs Jagdish Chandra Singh Bora & Anr., etc.2 reported in (2014) 8 SCC 644, and therefore, the petitioners cannot place any reliance on the observations in para 13 of the decision in the case of U.P.State Transport Corporation (supra). Further, the said decision is a judgment in personam applicable to the particular case and the other decisions, which have been relied on by the respondents are judgments in rem and applies to all cases of trained apprentices including the Writ Petitioners. It is further submitted that the impugned notifications were issued based on statutory Regulations, namely, Regulation 89 of the TNEB Service Regulation provides for recruitment through written examination and interview as well. The Regulation does not provide for dispensing with exam for Apprentice and therefore, uniform policy was adopted by TANGEDCO and written examinations were conducted not only for Assistant Engineers/Technical Assistant/Field Assistants posts, but also for other posts including Junior Assistants, Typists, Steno-Typists etc. It is further submitted that policy of the Board is in terms of B.P. No.10, dated 28.12.2015, is to recruit personnel by giving the Apprentices the preference as explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of U.P.Raj Viduyut Parishad Apprentice Welfare Association & Anr., (supra), and therefore, all candidates have to undergo the written examination and the interview. Further, it is submitted that the policy of the Board has been consistent and it is in accordance with the amended Section 22(1) of the Act. By dispensing with the written examination for apprentices, two different classes will be created among equals and there will not be a level playing field among the two categories. Further, when the Service Rules provides for a written examination, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the same cannot be dispensed with. Thus, the only protection that the apprentices are entitled to is a preference, when other things are equal. Further, it is submitted that there is no vested right for the Apprentices to claim employment in the services of the TANGEDCO.

(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.

13. In so far as the cases at hand are concerned, we find that the Corporation filed an additional affidavit in C.A. Nos. 4347-4854 of 1990 as desired by the Court on 20th October, 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. In so far as the age requirement is concerned, the same shall be relaxed as indicated above.

18. In terms of the above directions in the said case the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that other things be equal, a trained apprentice should be given preference over direct recruits, trainee would not be required to get his names sponsored by the employment exchange, age relaxation can be granted and the seniority among those trained to be maintained. What is sought to be heavily relied upon by the petitioners/trained apprentices, is the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph 13 of the judgment (supra). They seek for appropriate direction as granted in the said case and that they should not be subjected to any written examination. It would be relevant to point out that paragraph 13 pertains to cases, which were dealt with by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said appeal. Paragraph 12 pertains to four directions, which are general in nature dealing with claims of trainee to get employment.