Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the respondent no. 1, U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. issued order dated 11.05.2009 wherein it has been stated that all persons who have taken training under the Apprentices Act, 1961 be given preference in appointment on contract basis. Similar orders was issued on 24.04.2010. Petitioners claim appointment on the basis of the said Order without facing selection process.

In rebuttal, the respondents state that no legal right for appointment accrue to such persons who have obtained training under the Apprentices Act, 1961. However, certain relaxation in upper age limit by two years is given and in case, the merit and other conditions are same, preference will be given to the candidates who have obtained training. The department is giving preference to such apprentice trainees as per the Government Order and Circulars issued by the Corporation.

"12. In the background of what has been noted above, we state that the following would be kept in mind while dealing with the claim of trainees to get employment after successful completion of their training;

(1) Other things being equal, a trained apprentice should be given preference over direct recruits.

(2) For this, a trainee would not be required to get his name sponsored by any employment exchange. The decision of this Court in Union of India v. N. Hargopal would permit this.

(3) 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 service rule concerned. If the service rule be silent on this aspect, relaxation to the extent of the period for which the apprentice had undergone training would be given.

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

Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court contained in paragraph no. 13 of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation (supra) for appointment without going through the selection process.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that while considering the cases of trainee for giving employment on suitable post would not be required to appear in written examination, if any, provided in the Regulations. This observation was confined to the facts of the case at hand and was a direction under Article 142 and not under Article 141 of the Constitution of India.

"6. In our view, the expression "other things being equal" in paragraph 12 and absence of exemption from competitive test in the said paragraph, leads to the conclusion that all persons (including the apprentices) have to appear in the competitive test, as may be prescribed in respect of the particular selection, and if after the competitive test, any apprentice trainee gets equal marks than a non-apprentice candidate, then only preference is to be given to the said apprentice trainee."

9. Hence, the answer to question No. 1 is that the directives of the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court as contained in paragraph 12 of the said judgment in the case of U. P. State Road Transport Corporation V, U. P. Parivahan Nigam Shishuksha Berozgar Sangh (supra) is not confined to U.P.S.R.T.C. alone but they are applicable to all departments and corporations, but the directives in paragraph 13 of the said judgment apply strictly to the persons whose cases came up for consideration before the Apex Court in the said matter, and not to others."