Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: apprentice preference in S.Ramu vs The Chief Engineer (Personnel)Matching Fragments
8.The claim of the respondents is that in terms of BP 242 dated 26.6.1984, the trained apprentices enjoy a preference in the matter of employment with the appellant Board under whom they underwent the apprenticeship training and such training was given to them under the provisions of the Apprenticeship Act 1956.
9.Since the Appellant Board acted in contravention to the terums of the Board proceedings, several such similarly placed persons as that of the respondent approached this Court by filing Writ Petitions challenging BPMs (FB) No.60 dated 13.9.1988 in and by which the appellant Board decided to discontinue the procedure of giving preference to candidates who have completed the Apprenticeship Training in the Board. This Court allowed the Writ Petition in W.P.No.11807 of 1988, by an order dated 15.11.1988 reported in 1989 (1) L.L.N. Page 105 [P.DHARMARAJA Vs. TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD & ANOTHER].
"6.In fact, the assurance given in B.P.Ms.(Ch) No.242 was later withdrawn in B.P.(FB)No.69, Secretariat Branch, dated 13.09.1988. Therefore, the apprentices, who were trained after 13.09.1988, are not entitled to preference in employment in the respondent-Board. Therefore, the crucial date was 13.09.1988 and the apprentices, who were trained by the respondent-Board before the crucial date, are entitled to preference in employment, as per B.P.Ms.(Ch) No.242 referred to above.
7.When the Board refused to give preference in employment to apprentices trained before 13.09.1988, as per the promise made in B.P.Ms.(Ch) No.242, the apprentices, who were similarly situated as petitioners, filed series of writ petitions in various batches claiming employment. One such writ petition was disposed as early as on 01.09.1992 in W.P.No.590 of 1992 (M.VASU AND OTHERS VS. THE TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN, ANNA SALAI, MADRAS 2 AND ANOTHER) and this Court directed the respondent-Board to give preference in employment to the apprentices, who were trained before 13.09.1988. Based on the order of this Court, those persons were given employment by the respondent-Board. The petitioner and 8 others filed writ petition in W.P.No.19743 of 1994 and this Court directed the respondents to give preference in employment following the earlier order dated 01.09.1992 in W.P.No.590 of 1992. In fact, this Court considered the B.P.Ms.(Ch) No.242 and Section 22 of the Apprentices Act on 15.11.1988 in W.P.No.11807 of 1998 reported in 1989 (1) LLN 105 (DHARMARAJA AND OTHERS VS. TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD (BY ITS CHAIRMAN) AND ANOTHER) in a well considered judgment and directed the respondent-Board to give preference in employment to apprentices trained before 13.09.1988 as per B.P.Ms.(Ch) No.242.
(i) Other things being equal, a training apprentice should be given preference over direct recruits.
(ii) 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 Vs. N.Hargopal would permit this.
(iii) 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 by silent on this aspect, relaxation to the extent of the period for which the apprentice had undergone training would be given.
(iv) 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.
8. I respectfully submit that as per the guidelines given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India regarding apprentices, only preference would be given apprentice candidates was that other things being equal a trained apprentice should be given preference over direct recruit and that may attend the interview for the post of ITI Helper while conducting interview by Direct Recruitment, though the candidate name was not sponsored by the Employment Exchange and that the age would be relaxed to the extent of apprenticeship training period.