Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in judgment dated 03.10.1996 in Civil Appeal Nos.5285/1996 and S.L.P.Nos.45556/1996 held that the trainee apprentices have to go through the selection process provided under the regulations and they have no right to be appointed on a preferential basis over other candidates.

4. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in UP STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER VS. U.P. PARIVAHAN NIGAM SHISHUKHS BEROZGAR SANGH & OTHERS [1995 (2) SCC 1] has set out the benefits available to the trainee apprentices. As per the said judgment, trainee apprentices should be given preference over direct recruits when the other things being equal and they need not be sponsored by the Employment Exchange. Further, age relaxation was also given and the training institute was also required to maintain the list of trained persons on year wise basis.

5. Following the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court, Government of Tamil Nadu has issued orders in G.O.Ms.No.142, Labour and Employment Department, dated 10.11.1998 setting out the guidelines in the matter of appointment of trainee apprentices in the respondent Board, according to which, when other things being equal, a trained apprentice should be given preference over direct recruits.

6. In G.O.Ms.No.65, Labour and Employment Department, dated 30.03.2007, Government of Tamil Nadu have further specified a ratio of 1:1 as per the seniority of registration in the Employment Exchange, with an object of maintaining transparency in recruitment and to avoid delay. It was clarified therein that the guidelines shall be strictly followed as per the Government Order.

15. In respect of his contention, learned counsel for the appellant has produced the selection list pertaining to MBC category and other categories. The learned counsel has contended that without any standard norms and uniform procedure, the selection was made at the whims and fancies of the respondents and ineligible candidates were selected. Further, he has contended that even though there are orders and guidelines in UP STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS. UP PARIVAHAN [1995 (2) SCC 1] weightage and preference due to the apprenticeship training was not given. In fact, the petitioner had undergone apprenticeship training with the first respondent Electricity Board. Even though Government Orders have been issued for bringing objectivity and transparency in selection and to avoid delay in the selection process, preference was given to the trained apprentices of Electricity Board, more so, the ratio was also fixed to select the trained apprentices, the respondents had given go by to all these norms and selected candidates according to their own whims and fancies. Therefore, the selection shall be declared as bad and illegal.