Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1.Other things being equal, a trained apprentice should be given preference over direct recruits.
2.For this 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.
3.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 be silent on this aspect, relaxation to the extent of the period for which the apprentice had undergone training would be given.
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"

This Court has further observed in para 13 of the judgment as under:

"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 Regulation of the Corporation shall be followed expect that the trainees would not be required to appear in any written examination, of 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. In so for as the age requirement is concerned, the same shall be relaxed as indicated above.
This Court has, therefore, clearly laid down that the Apprentices/ Trainees shall have to go through the process of selection provided under the service Regulation / Rules. Keeping in view the fact that the Apprentices acquire training under the same management they are not required to sit in the written test but in a selection where viva  voce test is also provided, it would be necessary for the Apprentices to go through the process of viva  voce. This Court has specially laid down that a trained apprentice should be given reference  other things being equal direct recruits. In a given case an Engineering Graduate may be preferred to a diploma holder apprentice. It defendants on the selection Committee and also the Regulations / Rule governing the selection.

10.Further, law has been settled by the Supreme Court that trained apprentices must go through selection process and if only when two candidates are equal in all respects, then preference can be given to trained apprentices. But insofar as the trained apprentices are concerned, they were given limited exemption from age and also from being sponsored by the employment exchange. Therefore, the petitioners would have gone through selection process earlier, though their affidavits were silent on this aspect and did not speak about their being either gone through selection process or not. In any event, in the first writ petition the earlier prayer of the petitioners was to consider their request in the light of the Supreme Court judgment in Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Vs. P.Arul, and it does not talk about apprentices being given preferential appointment, but only preference in the selection process when two candidates are approximately equal. The petitioners having overaged and after a period of two decades cannot institute these writ petitions and seek for employment solely based upon the division bench judgment. In the division bench judgment, there is no reference to the earlier division bench judgment in Arul's case being reversed by the Supreme Court or the subsequent division bench in K.Venkadesan's case (cited supra). Even otherwise, the petitioners cannot come to this court with a claim which is two decades old and that they are guilty of laches. The writ petitions are liable to be rejected on that score also.