Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

9.We have said so as reference to that Circular shows that all it has done is to lay down the procedure for the selec- tion of the apprentices, which did not require the apprentices to undergo any written examination for selection and their routing through employment exchange was done away with. Something was said about the age also. No promise of employment can be read in this Circular which is of 21st December,1977. We would say the same about the Memo of the Directorate of Training and Employment of the State of U.P. dated 21st September, 1977 as falls short of any promise of employment, because what it says is that full efforts should be made to provide the trainees with service- In this Memo, what had been stated In para 2 of the Government of India's letter dated 31.8.1978 had been quoted in SOD which it was mentioned that the scheme of training had been introduced to promote chances of employment of educated employed persons; and that if employers would not provide employment to the qualified apprentices this would amount to destruction of developed human resources. It is because of this that the Government of India expressed the desire that other things being equal trained apprentices should be given preference in case of employment".

10. For a promise to be enforceable, the same has, however to be clear and unequivocal. We do not read any such prom- ise in the aforesaid three documents and we, therefore, hold that at the call of promissory estoppel, the direction in question could not have been given by the High Court. But then, we are left in no doubt that the Government of India did desire that preference should be given to the trained apprentices and it is because of this that the State Government stated in its letter No.735/38-6-16 (T)-79 dt. 12.11.79 that where such apprentices arc available, direct recruitment should not to be made. Indeed, the Government of India in its letter dated 23.3.1983 even desired reserva- tion of 50 per cent vacancies for apprentice trainees.

(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 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 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 conccrned training institute 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.

13. In so far as the cases at hand are concerned, we find that the Corporation filed an additional affidavit in C.A. Nos. 4347-4854 of 1990 as desired by the Court on 20th October, 1992 giving position regarding vacancies in the posts of conductors and clerks. If such posts be still va- cant, we direct the Corporation to act in accordance with what has been stated above regarding the entitlement of the trainees. We make it clear that while con-