Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7. In order to examine the force of the contention of the petitioner it is relevant to mention Paras 12 and 13 of the judgement of U.P. Parivahan Nigam Shishukshu Berozgar Sangh (supra).

"Para 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 :

(1) Other thing beings equal, a trained apprentice should be given preference over direct recruits.

(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 apprentice, preference shall be given to those who are senior.

Para--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 posts 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 the 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."

8. The question was referred before the Full Bench of this High Court in respect of interpretation whether the judgement of the Supreme Court in U.P. Parivahan Nigam Shishukshu Berozgar Sangh (supra) was confined to the UPSRTC alone or the judgment was applicable to all the department s or all the Corporations and this Court Full Bench in (1999) 2 UPLBEC 1397, Arvind Gautam v. State of U.P. and Ors., has indicated in its judgment as below :

"6. In our view the express "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.

7. Such a view gets support from the judgment of this Court in the case of Manoj kumar Mishra v. State of U.P. and Ors., reported in (1997) 2 AWC 654 (LB) : (1997) 2 UPLBEC 1374, where in the claim of apprentice trainees as regards exemption from competitive examination fell for consideration. The relevant findings in the said judgment are as follows.

"6.The clam 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 no where 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 of test otherwise his comparative merit cannot be judged. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has, however, placed reliance on two decisions, namely, Mohd. Waseem v. State, (1996) 14 LCD 82, and in Writ Petition No. 1489 of 1991, Bhartiya Mazdoor Sangh v. I.T.I. Ltd., decided on 4.7.1976 wherein a direction has been issued to consider the case of the petitioners in the light of the aforesaid observation made by the Supreme Court and a further direction has been issued that they will not be required to appear in any written examination, if any, provided under the Rules governing the conditions of service of regular employees. With profound respects and utmost humility, I am unable to agree with the aforesaid direction of the learned Single Judge that the petitioners would not be required to appear in any examination. A careful reading of the judgment of the Supreme Court would show that no such observation was made while dealing with the claim of trainees to get employment. No doubt there is such an observation in Paragraph 13 of the reports but that Paragraph specifically dealt with the cases in which U.P. State Road Transport Corporation had preferred appeals against the judgment dated k6.10.1989 of Allahabad High Court."