Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

In paragraph 12 of the decision in the case of U. P. State Road Transport Corporation (supra), the principle that has to be followed in the matter of giving preference to apprentice trainees, is laid down in the following manner :

"12. 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 :
(i) Other things being equal, a trained apprentice should be given preference over direct recruits.
(iv) The concerned training institute would maintain a list of the persons trained yearwise. The persons trained earlier would be treated senior to the persons trained later. In between the trained apprentices, preference shall be given to those who are senior."

7. A perusal of the abovequoted paragraph shows that four principles have been laid down. If other things are equal, then apprentice Is to be given preference and such apprentice would not be required to be sponsored by any employment exchange and that their age would be relaxed to the extent of the period during which they undergone training and that a list of trained apprentices yearwise is to be maintained for giving preference to the seniors. These principles set down two exceptions, namely, that they would not be required to be sponsored through employment exchange and that there shall be relaxation of age to the extent of period during which they had undergone training while It was provided for preference to them when other things being equal. These very principle indicate that in respect of other requirements, such trainees are to be treated equally with the outsiders and only when in the competition it was found that they stand equally with the outsiders, then they would be eligible and entitled for preference. It was no where provided in the said judgment that they would be exempted from appearing in the selection test or written examination. While the Apex Court had specifically exempted these persons from the requirement of being sponsored through employment exchange. consciously it has not exempted them from the requirement of selection test or written examination. When a particular condition is being exempted and it is silent about others, then it cannot be presumed that it has also exempted from other requirements as well.

9. The above judgment was interpreted in the above light in the decision in the case of Manoj Kumar Mishra (supra) as shall be apparent from paragraph 6 of the said judgment where same obse' .ations were made as is apparent from the contents of paragraph 6 of the said judgment which reads as under :

"6. The claim of the petitioners that they are not required to appear in any competitive examination or test which is held for making selection on the post on which they want to be appointed, cannot be sustained as no such direction has been given by Supreme Court. If the relevant service rules or Government Orders issued in this regard provide for holding of a competitive examination or test, the petitioners have to appear In the said examination or test and compete with other candidates. The Apex Court has nowhere ruled that the relevant provisions for holding an examination for making selection with regard to direct recruits is ultra vires or the same would not apply to a person who has completed apprenticeship training. In fact, the very first direction which provides that other things being equal, a trained apprentice should be given preference to other direct recruits, shows that he has to appear in the competitive examination or test otherwise his comparative merit cannot be Judged. Learned counsel for the petitioners has.
"in so far as the cases at hand are concerned we find that the Corporation filed additional affidavit in....."

The facts of the cases which went to appeal to the Supreme Court were entirely different. The Corporation (U.P.S.R.T.C.) in Its meeting dated 27.8.1977 had resolved that those apprentices who had been given training by it will get preference in the matter of appointment. On the basis of the aforesaid resolution, the Joint General Manager (Administration and Personnel) issued a circular dated 21.9.1977 laying down the procedure for selection of apprentices as general clerk/working clerk/junior clerk in the Corporation and mentioning that these apprentices will not be required to appear at the written test and at the time of interview, ten marks will be given to every trained apprentice towards his experience. On 10.1.1978 the Joint General Manager wrote to all the Regional Managers to consider the apprentices in the light of the circular dated 21.9.1977, by giving them preference. Thereafter, the persons who were trained as apprentices were appointed as and when vacancies occurred and many appointments were made without holding written test. However, subsequently some of the apprentices who had been imparted training by the Corporation were not given appointments and they filed writ petitions on the ground that the Corporation having given assurance to appoint them after completion of apprenticeship training and they having acted upon the said assurance and completed the training, the Corporation could not resile from its assurance and was consequently found to give them employment. The plea based on promissory estoppel was accepted and the writ petitions were allowed. These facts would be clear from the judgment of this Court which Is in 1990 (1) UPLBEC 326. In appeal the Supreme Court took the view that the doctrine of promissory estoppel could not be applied and the judgment of the High Court was modified accordingly. The observation that the trainees would not be required to appear in any written examination was made only with regard to those whose matter was up for consideration in appeal before the Court and has to be confined to the facts of that case alone in view of the resolution of the Corporation dated 22.8.1977 and the circular issued by the Joint General Manager on 21.9,1977. This observation cannot have any general application. It may be pointed out here that in Gangaram v. State of U. P., Special Appeal Wo. 77 (S/S) of 1995, decided on 23.5.1995. a Division Bench (Hon'ble Brijesh Kumar and A. P. Singh, JJ.), did not issue any such direction that a person who has completed apprenticeship training will not be required to appear in any examination."