Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. These three petitions raise identical issue. A reply affidavit and rejoinder affidavit has been filed in Special Civil Application No.6434/99 and the same has been considered as the part of pleadings in all the three cases. The petitioners in all the three cases are candidates who had undergone technical training at the Technical Training Institute managed and run by ONGC Ltd. as apprentices.

2. The grievance is about the recent recruitment process deployed by the respondents for recruiting junior technical assistants in different branches of trade. The principle contention of the petitioners in these petitions are that, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and another v/s U.P. Parivahan Nigam Shishukhs Berozgar Sangh and others [ [1995] 2 SCC 1, the respondents were under an obligation to maintain a list of the persons trained yearwise and persons trained earlier are to be treated as senior to the persons trained later and other things being equal, a trained apprentices should be given preference over direct recruits in the matters of appointment. Amongst the trade apprentice preference shall be given to those who are senior. Inspite of this, the respondents have recruited junior apprentices from later training period while leaving out the petitioners from consideration. They have not been invited for interview even. In the petitions, it was disclosed that the petitioners have been informed that they were not invited for interview because they have crossed the upper age limit to be eligible for consideration for appointment. To counter this objection, a plea has been taken that the respondents in past are giving appointments to such persons who have been much more older than the petitioners are. By way of illustrations, appointments of number of persons have been cited.

[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/s 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, in 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."

6. From the aforesaid, it is clear that while the Court directives were to consider the claim of trained apprentice to get an appointment at the establishments imparting training on preferential basis over direct recruits on other things being equal, and instead of requisitioning the name from employment exchange concerned spelt out obligation on management of such training centre to maintain yearwise list of persons trained by it and to consider their cases in order of yearwise seniority, also to be maintained by the institution, for the purpose of determining preference inter-se amongst trainees. However, absolute preference was not intended to be granted. Firstly it was envisaged that the trained apprentices would get preference over direct recruits only in case of other things being equal. The Court was also alive to the fact that at the time of offering appointment to the apprentice trainees after their training, the question of age bar may arise. It was therefore stated in no uncertain terms that if age bar were to come in the way of trainees, the same should be relaxed in accordance relevant service rules, if any, in the service rules concerned. In the absence of service rules, the relaxation to the extent of period for which the apprentice had undergone training ought to be given. Obviously, the court has saved the operation of service rules governing the relaxation in the age limit while considering giving appointment on preferential basis to trained apprentice. In the absence of rules, the Supreme Court itself devised that in such event, the relaxation in the maximum age would be given to the extent the period is spent in training. This was again reflected in the ultimate directives issued by Court. It was clearly stated once again in so far as the age requirement is concerned, the same shall be relaxed as indicated above. That is to say, in para 3 of the guidelines referred to above.