Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. The submission is thoroughly misconceived. I find that it is based on directions issued by Apex Court in UPSRTC Employees Federation vs. UPSRTC reported in JT 1995 (2) SC 26 wherein the Court laid down four conditions which have to be observed by an employer in respect to apprentices who had undergone apprenticeship training:

(i) Other things being equal, a trained apprentice should be given preference over direct recruits.
(ii) For this, a trainee would be required to get his name sponsored by any employment exchange. The decision of this Court in Union of India vs. Hargopal, AIR 1987 SC 227, would permit this.
(iii) 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 the concerned service rule, if the service rule be silent on this aspect, relaxation to the extent of the period for which the apprentice has undergone training would be given.
(iv) The concerned training institute would maintain a list of the persons trained year wise. The persons trained earlier would be treated senior to the persons trained later. In between the trained apprentice, preference shall be given to those who are senior.

5. The issue was again considered by a Division Bench in Bhoodev Singh and others Vs. Chairman, U.P. S.E.B. and others 2006(1) UPLBEC 950 and the question formulated by Court was, "whether petitioners, who were claiming appointments, were required to participate in written examination for appointment or not". The Court held that a candidate cannot claim exemption from the written test if it is required for others under relevant rules. The right of apprentice trainees is limited only to the preference, other beings being equal. They cannot claim any other right, or claim different treatment from other non-apprentice candidates.