Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. The grievance of the applicant is that despite the aforesaid civil decree passed in his favour, the respondents have yet not taken any step to appoint him to the concerned post and his representations made on the said subject remained unattended. Reliance was placed on U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Anr. v. U.P. Parivahan Nigam Shishukhs Berozgar Sangh and Ors. , contending that a trained apprentice should be given preference. Reliance was also placed on Narender Kumar and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors. .

Other things being equal, a trained apprentice should be given preference over direct recruits.
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. H. Hargopal would permit this.
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.
The training institute concerned would maintain a list of the persons trained yearwise. The persons trained earlier would be treated as senior to the persons trained later. In between the trained apprentices, preference shall be givens to those who are senior.
In the next paragraph of the judgment, the Corporation was directed to act in accordance with what has been stated above in case 'the posts are still vacant'. Reliance was also placed on , Krishan Chander Nayar v. The Chairman, Central Tractor Organisation and Ors., to contend that the arbitrary imposition of ban against employment of certain person under Government contravened applicants right guaranteed under Article 16 (1) of the Constitution of India.