Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2. 50% of the direct recruitment vacancies may be filled by trained apprentices, first preference being given to the apprentices trained in the same establishment and thereafter to those trained by other establishments.
3. Two months before the training of apprentices is scheduled to be over, public sector undertakings will intimate the designated Officer in the Ministry of Labour the number of apprentices trained and the number likely to be retained or absorbed within the undertakings/establishments.

8. Mr.R.Gandhi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners in some of the writ petitions, while adopting the contentions raised by Mr. K.Chandru, also contended that the apprentices who have been given training by spending substantial funds and time and the Board cannot afford to ignore their claims for absorption and doing so, would amount to wasting of public funds and energy and deprivation to the Board of the efficient services of such trained personnel in their own organizations. It was also argued that since such of the Undertakings or employers give preference to the respective apprentices only those who successfully completed their apprenticeship with the Board cannot successfully be got considered by other establishments and it is but necessary that the respondent - Board shall preferentially consider them for absorption and appointment. Mr. M.Venkatacahalapathy, learned counsel appearing for some of the appellants and petitioners while reiterating the above submissions of the learned counsel, referred to supra, also contended that the orders of the Board dated September 13, 1988 resolving to discontinue the preference in favour of the trained apprentices for employment are arbitrary, unreasonable and opposed to Articles 14, 16 and 39(a) of the Constitution of India and, therefore those orders of the Board are liable to be set aside and the claims of the various apprentices who have successfully completed their training on being selected for such training itself on the basis of merit taking into account the marks obtained in their qualifying examination as well as the interview conducted by the committee constituted specially for the purpose of selecting apprentices for training cannot be lightly ignored and they be treated as raw hands, with no special distinction or difference when considered with candidates who did not undergo such apprenticeship training. All the learned counsel also raised in unison a plea that the present move and also the offer now made that the Board is prepared to consider the claim of the apprentices who have successfully completed the training along with the other candidates before the selection committee for interview and if they are found to be equally placed in the marks awarded in the interview compared to a raw candidate they will be given preference, is designed with ulterior motive to achieve collateral purposes and the apprentices, if asked to once again undergo the process of selection in the interview will be subjected to hostile treatment in the hands of the respondent to ensure that the respondent-Board achieves its object of discontinuing the preference earlier given. The other learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners have adopted the submissions made by the learned counsel referred to supra.

(4) The training institute concerned could maintain a list of the persons trained year wise. The persons trained earlier would be treated as senior to the person trained later. In between the trained apprentice, preference shall be given to those who are senior."

13. In (1985-I-LLJ-337) (Narinder Kumar v. State of Punjab), the Apex Court was concerned with a claim for appointment of personnel after completion of apprenticeship when the clause in contract provided that the apprentice shall Be absorbed in the department if there is a vacancy. It was held therein by the Court that the object of the provision taken together with Section 22(2) of the Act is to guarantee to the extent of the existence of vacancies that the apprentices will not be rendered jobless after they complete their training.

29. The learned Additional Solicitor General made forceful and eloquent submissions on the guideline No. (1) in para 12 of the decision reported in (1995-II-LLJ-854) (supra) directing that other things being equal a trained apprentice should be given preference over direct recruits, and contended that the question of preference would arise only if and when the petitioners/appellants also participated in the selection process by offering themselves as candidates and provided on the allocation and assignment of marks the trainee apprentices or such of those who attended the selection secured marks equally. In substance, the contention appears to be, unless the apprentice trainee also gets as much marks as any other candidate and ranks equal or reach a stage of parity, there is no scope for applying the rule of preference visualised and recognised by the Apex Court. We have bestowed our careful thought on the submission but are unable to persuade ourselves to agree with the said submission which, if countenanced, will defeat the very object and the purpose of the decision and also encourage and pave way for abuse of the selection process by so arranging or manipulating the selection process of allocating marks in such a manner as to perpetuate the decision of the Board to cancel the earlier orders giving preference or discontinue the practice of preferring the apprentice trainees to the direct recruit raw hands. On acareful analysis of the directions and guidelines issued by the Supreme Court, we are of the view that their Lordships of the Supreme Court do not appear to have subscribed to the idea of subjecting the apprentices who have successfully completed their training to any other or further selection process except satisfying the norms formulated in paragraph 12 and the person concerned being so absorbed and appointed thereafter according to the formula No. (4) of para 12 of the decision in (supra) viz., year wise seniority and among them as per inter-se seniority. The fact that their Lordships thought fit to dispense with even the requirement of being sponsored by the Employment Exchange, the undergoing of any written test and age bar would support and justify our manner of understanding of the decision of the Apex Court. The submission of the learned Additional Solicitor General that it could not have been the intention of their Lordships of the Supreme Court who decided (1995-II-LLJ-854) (supra) to ignore or by-pass the rule of equality and equal protections of laws to other candidates as well and deny also the Board the wide range of choice of consideration to select best among the available talent and human material, though appears to be attractive as an argument but does not really appeal to us as of any merit for the reasons stated supra. Even that apart, we are unable to appreciate how mere would be any infringement of the principle of equality in appointing the trained apprentice trainees who were earlier sponsored by the respective Employment Exchange and their educational or academic qualifications were verified and a selection committee selected them from among a large number of candidates and that they underwent the apprentice training given by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and successfully completed such training the above special factors would make them stand separately as a distinct, independent and separate class from those who without such training has now applied for appointment by direct recruitment and there is no scope for treating the trained apprentices and non-trained candidates now applied as raw hands as belonging to the same class or category. Invidious or hostile discrimination or infringement of the equality clause will arise only if the inherent differences in these two categories of candidates are ignored and they are treated on par and certainly not if these two different classes of candidates are treated separately and that the apprentice trainees who have successfully completed their apprenticeship are given preference for appointment in terms of the decision of the Supreme Court in (1995-II-LLJ-854) (supra). A passing reference has also been made to the category of apprentice trainees who have got their training otherwise before a different employer than the respondent-Electricity Board, by the learned Additional Solicitor general. We are of the view that there could be no difficulty in holding that for the vacancies available with a particular Employer and in an Establishment concerned, it is those who have successfully completed their apprenticeship training in that particular Establishment or under an Employer, would be entitled to preference in that particular Establishment or with the employer concerned.