Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(4) The training institute concerned 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. Insofar as the cases at hand are concerned, we find that the Corporation filed an additional affidavit in C.A. Nos. 4347-4354 of 1990 (as desired by the Court) on 20.10.1992 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. Insofar as the age requirement is concerned, the same shall be relaxed as indicated above."

6. The direction of the Apex Court provided that other things being equal, a trained apprentice should be given preference over direct recruits. The Apex Court further held that the apprentice need not appear in the written examination, if any. The Apex Court also observed that while considering the entitlement 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. After the aforesaid direction of the Apex Court, the grievance of the trainees was that they were not engaged and the Apex Court took notice in contempt jurisdiction of the Apex Court and subsequently an affidavit was filed by the Corporation that appointment shall be finalised by the end of July, 1996, by the proportion. The contempt proceedings were disposed of by the Apex Court on 19.3.1996, copy of which order is on the record as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. The selection on the post of conductor took place in 1996-97. Some of the petitioners and other persons who had obtained training appeared in the said selection but the petitioners who are before this Court in these petitions were not selected whereas some of the persons who had obtained the apprentice training were selected and appointed as conductor. With regard to 1997 selection, the apprentice trainees were not asked to appear in the written examination. They were interviewed and on the basis of some quality point marking selection was made and select list was published. In the year 1997, certain selection process were again initiated for filling up the posts for scheduled caste and scheduled tribe candidates which advertisement was also challenged in which writ petition order was passed by this Court making selection subject to result of the writ petition. After 1998, no regular selection for the post of conductor has been undertaken. The State Government on 25.10.2005 granted permission to fill up 3000 posts of conductor. In first phase it was provided that 1500 posts of conductor be filled up. Copy of the said Government Order has been filed as Annexure-13 to the writ petition. After the said Government Order dated 25th October, 2005, the advertisement in question dated 1st February, 2005 has been issued. A copy of the said advertisement has been filed as Annexure-14 to this writ petition. The advertisement provides that selection is to be made for 1500 posts out of which 400 posts are reserved for dependent of deceased employees. The breakup of 1500 posts has been given as S.C., S.T., O.B.C. and general category candidates. There is further division in the aforesaid four categories in which certain posts are said to be reserved for dependent of deceased employees. The advertisement provides that the selection process will be done in three steps. The first step is written test on the basis of which the candidates shall be considered in the second step. The second step of the selection is for calculating the marks of intermediate and certain other categories of employees mentioned in the advertisement and thereafter in third step interview is to be done. The select list is to be prepared in accordance with the marks obtained by a candidate in the second and third steps.

18. Now coming to the certificate of apprentice trainees, the petitioners have emphatically submitted that the training imparted by Corporation in different trades is also relevant for the duties to be performed by the conductor. It has been submitted that some trainees have been given apprentice training in mechanic trade and various other categories of trades which have relevant nexus with the duties and when the additional marks are being given to I.T.I, mechanic trade, heavy motor vehicle driving licence holder and home guard why can the said weightage be also not given to the apprentice trainees who have been given training in a relevant trade which has nexus with the duties of the conductor. The submission do have substance. The preference to the trainees as directed to be given by the Apex Court has to be given a purposeful interpretation. It is true that the Apex Court directed that preference be given when all other things are equal but by giving weightage to certain other similarly situated persons and denying the said weightage to the trainees is denying equal treatment to the trainees. The concept of giving preference embraces in itself the equal treatment by the Corporation. The Corporation has every right to examine and assess the candidates for the suitability of the job but denying the due weightage when similar weightage has been provided for in stage two selection is arbitrary. Things would have been otherwise if no stage two selection was envisaged and all candidates were treated similarly in that even the petitioners could not have been heard in saying that they should be given additional weightage. If their suitability would have been assessed in interview only and on equality of marks preference was to be given to the apprentice trainees they could not have complained any unfair treatment. The 'preference' has come for consideration before the Apex Court in Secretary, A.P. Public Service Commission v. Y.V.V.R. Srinivasulu and Ors., . The apex Court in paragraph 10 has laid down :

23. The above observations of the Apex Court clearly support the contention of the petitioners that experience gained by the contract conductors while performing the duties of conductor is relevant for adjudging competence and merit of the candidate.

24. The protection of equality clause under Article 14 of the Constitution is available to every candidate who seeks employment against the advertisement in question. The direction of the apex Court in U.P. Road Transport Corporation's case (supra) was also to give preference to a trained apprentice other things being equal. The direction itself envisages equal treatment to the trained apprentice also while considering the candidature of other candidates including the direct recruits. The apex Court mandated giving preference other things being equal. The observation 'other things being equal' itself demonstrates equal treatment to the apprentices also. In the advertisement when in second stage selection certain experience are awarded with weightage marks ignoring similar kind of experience/certificates is unequal treatment meted on apprentice trainees. The direction of the apex Court clearly envisages equal treatment to the trainees also by giving preference. As observed above, the apprentice trainees in trades relevant to the duties of conductor are also entitled for weightage. Similarly, the experience gained by contract conductors also entitled for weightage and by giving such weightage only an equal treatment shall be given to apprentice trainees and contract conductors. The protection of equality clause under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India clearly support the claim of apprentice trainees and contract conductors to give weightage. In above view of the matter issues No. (ii) and (iv) have to be answered in affirmative.