Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

17. Answering respondents referred to the case of U.P. State Transport Corporation Vs. U.P. Parivahan Nigam Shishuks, 1995 (2) SCT 367 SC wherein the Apex Court held in para 2 that the scheme of apprenticeship has been introduced to promote the chances of employment of educated employed persons and to give preference to trained apprentice in case of employment otherwise it would amount to destruction of developed human resources. The claim of applicants in view of their condition in the bond, payment of monthly stipend and past action of authorities is pari materia to the provisions of Apprenticeship Act which provides to give priority recruitment/employment to candidates from internal source.

30. The private respondents have relied on the U.P. State Transport Corporation (supra) wherein the Apex Court held in para 2 that the scheme of apprenticeship has been introduced to promote the chances of employment of educated employed persons and to give preference to trained apprentice in case of employment.

31. The respondents have also relied upon the judgement passed by the State of Orissa & Anr. Vs. Rajkishore Nanda & Ors., 2010 (6) SCC 777 wherein, it has been held by the Apex Court that it is the exclusive prerogative of the employer/State Administration to initiate the selection process for filling up vacancies occurred during a particular year. There may be vacancies available but for financial constraints, the State may not be in a position to initiate the selection process for making appointments. Bonafide decision taken by the appointing authority to leave certain vacancies unfilled, even after preparing the select list cannot be assailed. The Courts/Tribunals have no competence to issue direction to the State to initiate selection process to fill up the vacancies.