Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

4. This Court in a batch of writ petitions seeking similar relief vide common order dated 25.01.2017 in W.P.Nos.5411 of 2016 etc., (batch) dismissed the writ petitions holding that

23. It is not in dispute that such is the condition agreed to by all the petitioners/trained Apprentices. In such circumstances, the only option available to them is to compete with the candidates from the open market, subject themselves to the process of recruitment, as notified by the TANGEDCO vide notification dated 28.12.2015, appear for the written examination, attend the oral interview and in the event, there is a tie between a trained Apprentice and the candidates from the open market, that is, if all things are equal, then and then alone, the trained Apprentice is entitled for preference.

25. On a reading of BP No.10, it is evident that it is a https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis policy decision taken by the Board concerning recruitment to the post referred above. The three sources of recruitment have been mentioned, namely through the employment exchange, trained apprentices and candidates from the open market. The Board took into consideration the decision of the Hon'ble Division bench which directed wide publicity while inviting applications not only restricting to sponsorship by the employment exchange or the Apprentices alone. This judgment was accepted by the Government and a policy decision was taken by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.44, Labour and Employment Department, dated 11.03.2015. The Board before mechanically adopting or resolving to adopt the Government's policy constituted a three member committee with the Director (Distribution) as Chairman and the Secretary and the Chief Engineer (Personnel) as its members and the Committee submitted their recommendations with regard to the mode of recruitment and selection and all other matters incidental thereto. The Board considered the report of the said committee and after examination of the proposal accorded approval for the said proposal. Thus, in all respects B.P.No.10, dated 10.12.2015, is the policy of TANGEDCO for recruiting not only Apprentices, but also persons from the open market. Thus, the contention of the petitioner that there is no policy framed after the amendment to the Apprentice Act is incorrect. Further, this Court finds that the amendment to Section 22(1) of the Act does not confer any vested right on the petitioners/Apprentices. Even much prior to the amendment, the policy of the Board was that if merit and ability are equal, preference shall be given to apprentice who had undergone training in the Board. All that the amendment https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis insists upon the employer is to frame a policy, which has been done in terms of B.P. No.10.