Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

In the background of what has been noted above, we state that the following would be kept in mind while dealing with the claim of trainees to get employment after successful completion of their training:
(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. N. HARGOPAL 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 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.
(4) 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 given to those who are senior. "

7. Subsequently, the Supreme Court had an occasion to clarify its order vide judgement in U.P. RAJYA VIDYUT PARISHAD APPRENTICE WELFARE ASSN. v. STATE OF U.P. (2000) 5 SUPREME COURT CASES 438. In the decision, in para 4, the Supreme Court has held as follows:-