Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: apprentice preference in Bhoodev Singh Son Of Sri Karan Singh And ... vs Chairman, Uttar Pradesh State ... on 31 January, 2006Matching Fragments
3. The petitioners, who were claiming preference by way of direct appointment having received training as apprentice, instituted the present writ petition after publication of the aforesaid advertisement praying principally for the following relief:-
issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the appointment of the candidates on the respective posts and in which they are trained apprentices giving the preference, ignoring the age bar and giving them preference over the candidates who are not trained apprentices.
21. In U.P. State Electricity Board v. Shiv Mohan Singh and Anr. , the Hon'ble Apex Court reconsidered the whole issue considering and relying upon all its earlier judgments, and came to conclusion that right of apprentice is only limited to having preference being other things equal. In the said judgment, the Apex Court full approved the judgment of this Court in Rajendra Singh (supra).
22. The issue involved herein has been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mukesh K. Tripathi v. Sr. Divisional Manager, LIC and Ors. and held that an apprentice and is neither an employee nor a workman as apprentice has defined in Section 2(aa) of Act 1961, to mean "a person who is undergoing an apprenticeship training in a designated trade in pursuance of a contract of apprentices. Section 18 of the Act 1961 provides that apprentices are trainees and not employees.
24. Similar view has been reiterated in Government of Andhra Pradesh v. P. Dilip and Anr. ; and Secretary, A.P. Public Service Commission v. Y.V.V.R. Srinivasulu and Ors. .
25. From the aforesaid facts, it is evident that the right of apprentice trainees is limited only to the preference, other things being equal. They cannot claim any other right or claim different treatment for other non-apprentice candidates. We find no force in the submissions made by Shri Upadhayay, learned Senior Cousel that from time to time, the Government has issued certain directions/guidelines/orders to appoint the apprentice trainees and not to make, recruitment from general candidates and for that purpose reference may be made to the Government Orders dated 21.09.1977, 21.08.1978, 27.08.1978, 12.10.1979, 30.05.1981, 03.01.1998, 06.05.1998 and 26.05.1998 contained in Annexures 3, 4, 5, 7 to 14. All these orders speak of preference and the judgment and order passed subsequent to UPSRTC case (supra) specifically provide for making appointment giving preference.
55. Even otherwise, it is settled legal proposition that in the absence of any statutory Rules/Regulations, recruitment may be made on the basis of executive instructions and in absence thereof, by following a procedure which may be in consonance with the mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution (Vide Ramesh K. Sharma v. Rajasthan Civil Services and Ors. 2000 AIR SCW 4206). Thus, it cannot be held that the respondents had acted arbitrarily or have violated the mandate of the Constitutional provisions. Petitioners' right in all such circumstances is limited to have preference over non-apprentice candidates, if other things are equal.