Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(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 this 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 concerned 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. 4347-4354 of 1990 (as desired by the Court) on 20th October, 1992 giving position regarding vacancies in the post of conductors and clerks. If such posts be still vacant, we direct the Corporation to act in accordance with what has been stated above regarding the entitlement of trainees. We make it clear that while considering the cases of the trainees for giving employment in suitable posts, what has been laid down in the Service Regulations of the Corporation shall be followed, except that the trainees would not be required to appear in any written examination, if any, provided by the Regulations. It is apparent that before considering the cases of the trainees, the requirement of their names being sponsored by the employment exchange would not be insisted upon. In so far as the age requirement is concerned, the same shall be relaxed as indicated above."

The Full Bench also laid down that the expression "other things being equal" in paragraph 12 and absence of exemption from competitive test in the said paragraph, leads to the conclusion "that all persons (including the apprentices) have to appear in the competitive test, as may be prescribed in respect of the particular selection, and if, after the competitive test any apprentice trainee gets equal marks than a non-apprentice candidate, then only preference is to be given to the said apprentice trainee".

The Full Bench Judgment of this Court in Arvind Gautam case (Supra) was approved by the Supreme Court in U.P. Rajya Vidyut Parishad Apprentice Welfare Association and Another vs. State of U.P.and Others, (2000) 5 SCC 438.

In view of the Full Bench Judgment of this Court in Arvind Gautam case (Supra), it is evident that the trained apprentices also would have to undergo the same selection process which others would be required to undergo at the time of recruitment. However, if after undergoing the same selection process, a trained apprentice gets marks equal to those obtained by non-apprentice candidate, then the trained apprentice would be given preference.