Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

"(1) Other thing 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. Hargopal, AIR 1987 SC 1227. 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 concerned service rule. 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 concerned training institute would maintain a list of the persons trained year wise. 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."

7. A perusal of the aforesaid guidelines makes it clear that the petitioner has no right to claim direct appointment on the basis of those guidelines.

8. The petitioner has further referred Annexure-6 which is a judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No. 4532 of 1992 (S/S), Mohd. Waseem v. U.P. State Electricity Board and Ors.. In this case, the petitioner was apprentice draftsman. No advantage can be given of this judgment to the petitioner in granting the relief of mandamus for appointment.