Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2. The second respondent filed counter affidavit wherein it is stated that Regulation 89 (d) (i) of the Service Regulations, inter alia, provides that selection shall be made by the appointing authority on the results of the written examination or interview or based on the performance in the qualifying examination prescribed for the respective post or by awarding marks for the performance in the qualifying examination or by combining any of the method as considered suitable. Based on the Regulation 89 of the T.N.E.B. Service Regulations, Government orders, the Advocate General has opined that the apprentice candidates must also appear in the competitive written examination as per http://www.judis.nic.in G.O.Ms.No.44, dated 11.3.2015. Thereafter, a committee was constituted in (Per) CMD TANGEDCO Proceedings No.64, Administrative branch, dated 30.03.2015 comprising the Director (Distribution), Secretary and the CE/ Personnel and the Committee considered, among other things that the statutory provisions and the mode adopted by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission for recruitment for Assistant Engineer/ Civil in Highways Department of the Government of Tamil Nadu including the provision for apprentice candidates in the TNPSC Notification, i.e. ''Provided that other things being equal, preference shall be given to those who have undergone one year Apprenticeship Training under the Government of India Scheme or the State Government Apprenticeship Scheme'' and recommended that the posts by direct recruitment may be filled up by advertisement and also from the candidates sponsored by the employment exchange; that the marks obtained in the competitive written examination to be worked out for 85% and for viva-voce interview - 15% and that the selection may be on merits of above marks and communal roaster and other things being equal, preference should be given to the apprentice candidates who have completed apprenticeship in erstwhile TNEB, TANGEDCO/TANTRANSCO. While so, a batch of writ petitions in W.P.No.1048 of 2016, etc. have been filed before this Court challenging the recruitment notification. When the matter was taken up by the First Division Bench in Writ Appeal Nos.267, 235 http://www.judis.nic.in and 744 of 2017, the Division Bench of this Court refused to grant any interim orders and allowed the TANGEDCO to proceed with the recruitment process. Thereafter, the issue of considering apprentices were again considered by the Board of Directors and accordingly, the following orders were issued in (Per.) (FB) TANGEDCO proceeding No.08, dated 31.8.2017:

(2) Other things being equal apprentice will be given preference in appointment as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Vs. U.P.Parivam Shishukha (1995) 2 SCC 1 and clarified in U.P. Rajya Vidyut Parishad Apprentice Welfare Association and Anr. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others 2000 LLR 969 (SC) = 2000 (3) SCR 1201, as has been hitherto followed.

(3) Age relaxation will be allowed to the extent of the actual period of apprentice training undergone in the TNEB/ TANGEDCO/ TANTRANSCO.

2(i) The Board after careful consideration and taking into account the direction of the Hon'ble High Court, has framed an exclusive policy with regard to apprentice prior to and after the amendment to Section 22(1) of the Apprentices Act, 1961 vide (Per. vide (Per.) (FB) TANGEDCO proceeding No.08, dated 31.8.2017. Moreover, the apprentices were given preference in law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of http://www.judis.nic.in India in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Vs. U.P. Parivahan Nigam Shishukha (1995) 2 SCC 1 and clarified in U.P. Rajya Vidyut Parishad Apprentice Welfare Association and Anr. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others (2000 LLR 869 (SC) = 2000 (3) SCR 1201) as has been hitherto followed and also age relaxation has been allowed to the extent of the actual period of apprentice training undergone in the TNEB/TANGEDCO/TANTRANSCO.