Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

17. An identical question arose before this Court in W.A.No.375, 3 76, 477, 666 to 676 of 1995 etc., batch (P.Arul and 237 others Vs. TNEB). The Division Bench by judgement dated 20.9.1995 held that persons who have undergone apprenticeship Training with the TNEB claim priority in the employment in respect of vacancies that arose in the Electricity Board and the Division Bench sustained the claim of such apprentices while setting aside the judgement of the Single Judge. In the said judgement the respondents relied upon a Government Order G.O.Ms.No.1151, Labour and Employment dated 18.7.1979. The G.O., which is being relied upon by the respondent in this writ petition is identical to the said G.O. Though the Division Bench sustained the claim of apprentice-trainees, namely, priority in appointment, the Apex Court in Civil Appeal Nos.5285 to 5328 of 1996 preferred by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, reversed the Division Bench Judgement and laid down that apprentices-trainees have no such right of priority for being appointed in preference to other applicants who underwent apprenticeship in different establishment. In this respect, the Apex Court held thus:-

"This court has therefore clearly laid down that Apprentices/ Trainees shall have to go through the process of selection provided under the Service Regulations/Rules. Keeping in view the fact that the Apprentices acquire training under the same management, they are not required to sit in the written test but in a selection where viva voce test is also provided, it would be necessary for the Apprentices to go through the process of viva voce. This court has specifically laid down that a trained apprentice should be given preference other things being equal over direct recruits. In a given case an Engineering Graduate may be preferred to a diploma holder apprentice. It depends on the Selection Committee and also the Regulations/Rules governing the selection.
We are of the view that this court has clearly laid down that the Apprentice-Trainees have no right to be appointed in preference to other applicants.
The Division Bench of the High Court based its findings on the following reasoning:
"On a careful analysis of the directions and guidelines issued by the Supreme Court we are of the view that their Lordship 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 inter-se-seniority reckoned with reference to the formula No.(4) of para 12 of the decision in 1995 (1) SCC 1 viz., yearwise seniority and among them as per inter-se seniority".