Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

"(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. Hargopal. AIR 1987 SC 1227. would permit this.
(3) If any 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 concerned service rule. 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 concerned training institute 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."

5. The aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court came up for consideration before one of us (G. P. Mathur, J.) in Manoj Kumar Misra v. State of U. P. and others, 1997 12) AWC 654. and it was held as follows :

"The claim of the petitioners that they are not required to appear in any competitive examination or test which is held for making selection on the post on which they want to be appointed, cannot be sustained as no such direction has been given by Supreme Court. If the relevant service rules or Government Orders issued in this regard provide for holding of a competitive examination or test, the petitioners have to appear in the said examination or test and compete with other candidates. The Apex Court has nowhere ruled that the relevant provisions for holding an examination for making selection with regard to direct recruits is ultra vires or the same would not apply to a person who has completed apprenticeship training. In fact, the very first direction which provides that other things being equal, a trained apprentice should be given preference to other direct recruits, shows that he has to appear in the competitive examination or test otherwise his comparative merit cannot be judged. Learned counsel for the petitioners has. however, placed reliance on two decisions. namely, Mohd. Waseem v. State. 1996 (14) LCD 82, and in Writ Petition No. 1489 of 1991. Bhartiya Mazdoor Sangh v. I.T.I. Ltd., decided on 4.7.1996. wherein a direction has been issued to consider the case of the petitioners in the light of the aforesaid observation made by the Supreme Court and a further direction has been Issued that they will not be required to appear in any written examination, if any, provided under the Rules governing the conditions of service of regular employees. With profound respects and utmost humility, I am unable to agree with the aforesaid direction of the learned single Judge that the petitioners would not be required to appear in any examination. A careful reading of the judgment of the Supreme Court would show that no such observation was made while dealing with the claim of trainees to get employment. No doubt there is such an observation in paragraph 13 of the reports but that paragraph specifically dealt with the cases in which U. P. State Road Transport Corporation had preferred appeals against the judgment dated 6.10.1989 of Allahabad High Court."