Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: apprentice preference in S.Bharani vs The Tamil Nadu Generation And ... on 5 January, 2015Matching Fragments
1. Other things being equal, a trained apprentice should be given preference over direct recruit;
2. A trained apprentice would not be required to get his name sponsored by any Employment Exchange.
3. If age bar would come in the way of trainee, the same would be relaxed in accordance with what is stated in this regard, if any, in the Service Rules concerned. If the Service Rule is 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 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 seniors.
5. The Apprentices/ Trainees shall have to go through the process of Selection provided under the Service Rules/Regulation and that since the Apprentices acquire training under the same management they are not required to sit in the written test but in a selection where viva-voce test is also provided it would be necessary for the apprentices to go through the process of viva-voce.
8. Learned Advocate General as well as the learned counsel appearing for the private respondents made the following submissions:
There is no arbitrariness involved in the selection process. In the absence of any element of unreasonableness and selective discrimination, the selection made cannot be set aside. The petitioners are aware of the selection process. Even for the year 2009, semesters 3 to 6 alone were taken into consideration. As per the Government Order passed in G.O.Ms.No.18 Labour and Employment (N2) Department dated 25.2.2008 the ratio of 1:5 will have to be fixed only for the candidates, who have registered through the Employment Exchange alone. As the apprentice trainees came from a different channel, which has been recognised by the Supreme Court, they cannot be included in the ratio of 1:5. In the selection process, 85% has been earmarked for the marks obtained in the academic qualification. Since uniform procedure has been adopted the petitioners cannot have any grievance over the same to contend that the apprentice trainees have not been preferred. The relative merits of the candidates were taken note of in the interview while awarding marks. The respondents have followed communal rotation in filling the posts. Carry forward of the backlog vacancies was made in accordance with the Government Orders passed in G.O.Ms.No.1352, Adi-Draidar and Tribal Welfare Department, dated 27.7.89, G.O.Ms.No.731, Backward Classes Welfare, Nutritious Meal Programme and Social Welfare Department, dated 21.8.89, G.O.Ms.No.34, Backward Classes, Most Backward Classes & Minorities Welfare (Bcc) Department dated 2.5.2000 is meant for the direct recruitment appointments. Even as per G.O.Ms.No.731 dated 21.8.1989 carry forward of the backlog vacancies are allowed to M.B.C. Only 3 posts were carried forward. Of the three, two were most backward class (denotified community), out of which one is for Ex.Servicemen and Tamil Medium. The remaining one is with respect to Backward Class (Muslim). The petitioners have not raised any specific plea on this issue. In any case, the real grievance must have been raised by the unsuccessful candidates in the earlier round of selection. As even assuming the contentions of the petitioners are accepted, then the remaining 3 posts ought to have been filled up in the next turn. The petitioners are not within the zone of consideration even for being considered for the said three posts. As the interview was conducted in pursuant to the list sent by the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Employment Training, Guindy, Chennai600 034, age of the candidates was not verified. Insofar as the candidates by name E.Gayatri and Mani Megalai, are concerned, their cases will be looked into and appropriate decision would be made in accordance with law. So far as the candidate by name R.Karthik Nivas is concerned, the selection was made based upon the Check list given by him. The marks have been awarded by reducing it to 80% with respect to the total marks obtained in the qualifying examination. In any case, that cannot be a ground to set aside the entire selection. Therefore it is submitted that no interference is required.