Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

10. Sri Samir Sharma, learned Counsel appearing for the Corporation refuted the submissions raised on behalf of the petitioners and submitted that the Corporation cannot in block give appointment to apprentice trainees or contract conductor. He submitted that direction of the Apex Court was not to appoint them in block without subjecting them to undergo the process of selection. He submitted that object of the corporation is to select a suitable candidate for the job and appointing the trainees in block will prejudice the interest of the Corporation. He submitted that the trainees have not to take any written examination and they are being interviewed along with other open market candidates by giving weightage to certain factors as indicated in the advertisement in step two selection. He submitted that categories which have to be given marks according to the advertisement has relevant nexus with the duties of conductor and none of the criteria's laid down therein are unreasonable. He submitted that contract conductors were appointed on contract basis and their service conditions were governed by the terms of the contract and they have no right to get straight way appointment without facing competition with others. Justifying the 400 posts for dependent of deceased employee, it has been submitted by Sri Sharma that in corporation for long time no appointments were made for dependent of deceased employee and large number of applications of eligible persons are waiting in queue for which 400 have been kept apart. He submitted that keeping apart 400 posts for that category of persons is not a kind of reservation. He contended that there is no ground to interfere with the advertisement.

11. Counsel for both the parties have relied on various decisions of this Court as well as the Apex Court which shall be considered while considering the respective submissions.

12. From the submissions of the parties, as noted above, following issues emerge for consideration by this Court in these writ petitions :

(i) Whether the apprentice trainees who were imparted training by the Corporation are entitled for appointment/ absorption on the post of conductor without they being subjected to any process of selection and whether the contract conductors are also entitled for appointment/absorption on the basis for their experience without undergoing the process of selection?

13. The first issue is with regard to absorption/appointment of trainees in block without facing the selection. The order of the apex Court dated 12th January, 1995 itself dispels the submission that trainees were required to be appointed without them subjecting to any process of selection. This fact is clear from the observation of the Apex Court in paragraph 3 of the said judgment which is extracted below :

"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 Regulations."

16. Now corning to the submission of contract conductors, it is true that they were engaged as contract conductors in the Corporation and they have been discharging the duties on the post. Neigher any statutory rule nor any scheme has been pleaded or referred to entitling any contract conductors or a person worked on the said post to absorption/regularisation. The mere fact that petitioners have worked as contract conductors for several years maximum up to 8 years itself is not sufficient for en-block appointment without subjecting them to process of selection. The Full Bench judgment of this Court in Lal Mohammed and Ors. v. Indian Railway Construction Co. Ltd., New Delhi and Ors., 2O04 (3) ESC 1362, had laid down the above proposition. Thus issue No. 1 is answered in negative.