Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the impugned order is ex facie illegal on several grounds and the primary ground being that though the petitioner has been fully qualified with due seniority and undergone apprentices training under the same Management, he has not been considered for appointment to the said post, whereas, the candidates, who are juniors, (having registered their names subsequent to the petitioner in Employment Exchange) have got appointed. The learned counsel, in support of his contention that trained apprentices are entitled for preference, placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of (U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and another Vs. U.P.Parivahan Nigam Shighukha Burosgar Sangh and others) reported in (1995) 2 S.C.C. 1. The learned counsel further contended that though the petitioner comes under the dependent ex-serviceman quota and even as per the information furnished to the petitioner by the first respondent under RTI Act candidates under the ex-serviceman quota have been selected in accordance with seniority in the Employment Exchange, but the petitioner has not been selected under the said quota.

7. The learned Standing Counsel further submitted that though the learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his contention that trained apprentices are entitled for preference, placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation's, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly laid down therein that apprentices have no right to be appointed in preference to other applicants. The learned Standing Counsel, therefore, justified the order passed by the second respondent and contended that the same requires no interference. Consequently, the learned standing counsel for the respondents prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

10. The next contention of the petitioner that advertisement calling for interview for appointment to the said post was only with regard to certificate verification, but, later viva voce was conducted and marks were awarded which is contrary to the rules prescribed for selection, is also not sustainable for the reason that guidelines were issued to conduct a viva-voce in technical subjects and manegerial skills and 15 marks were earmarked for being awarded to the candidates based on their performance in the interview. Therefore, the judgment relied on by the petitioner, in the case of (Hemani Malhotra Vs. High Court of Delhi) reported in (2008) 7 S.C.C. 11 for the proposition that the authority cannot either, during the selection process of the candidate or after the selection process, add an additional requirement/qualification that the candidate should also secure minimum marks in the interview, is of no assistance. Though petitioner contended that he is a trained apprentice and he should be given preference by relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation's case, the learned Standing Counsel distinguished the said judgment by rightly pointing out that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that apprentices have no right to be appointed in preference to other applicants. Therefore, I am not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the second respondent, which is impugned in this writ petition. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed as being devoid of merits. No costs.