1. List revised. None appeared on behalf of petitioner to press this petition. However, I have perused the record.
2. The petitioner has sought a mandamus commanding that the members of petitioner's society be appointed in the Corporation in compliance of Apex Court's judgement in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation & Anr. Vs. U.P. Parivahan Nigam Shishukhs Berozgar Sangh & Ors., 1995(2) SCC 1.
3. The real intention of petitioner appears to be that for the mere reason that apprentices have undergone training with respondents-establishment who was simply complying with the statutory provisions of Apprenticeship Act, 1961, they (Apprentices) are entitled to get appointment in the establishment of respondents and it cannot proceed to make direct recruitment in accordance with its own statutory regulations giving opportunity of employment to all equally placed persons in order to comply the requirement of Article 16 of Constitution.
4. The submission as also the understanding of petitioner is thoroughly misconceived and lacks substance.
5. The issue as to whether an apprentice who has completed training is entitled for absorption merely on the ground of completion of training and the effect of the direction issued by the Apex Court in UPSRTC Employees Federation vs. UPSRTC reported in JT 1995 (2) SC 26, has been reconsidered by the Apex Court in U.P. Rajya Vidyut Parishad Apprenticeship Welfare Association and Another vs. State of U.P. and Others 2000 (3) AWC 1998. The Hon'ble Court has held that an apprentice has to undergo the procedure of examination/interview and to compete with the open market candidates in a selection which is to be held in accordance with the rules. However, while appearing in the aforesaid selection, the persons who have completed apprenticeship training, may be entitled to the benefit laid down in Condition Nos. 1 and 4 in the Apex Court judgement in UPSRTC case (supra) which conditions are reproduced below: -
(i) Other things being equal, a trained apprentice should be given preference over direct recruits.
(ii) For this, a trainee would be required to get his name sponsored by any employment exchange. The decision of this Court in Union of India vs. Hargopal, AIR 1987 SC 227, would permit this.
(iii) 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 has undergone training would be given.
(iv) The concerned training institute would maintain a list of the persons trained year wise. The persons trained earlier would be treated senior to the persons trained later. In between the trained apprentice, preference shall be given to those who are senior.
6. This question again was considered by a Full Bench of this Court in Arvind Gautam vs. State of U.P. and Others, 1998 (2) ESC 1394. It was held that the apprentices are to go through the examination and also the interview and there is no automatic absorption in the vacancy to be filled by the direct appointment. The aforesaid view of the Full Bench has been affirmed by the Apex Court in U.P. Rajya Vidyut Parishad Apprenticeship Association (supra). Recently, a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Bhoodev Singh vs. State of U.P. State Electricity Board and Others, 2008 (2) ADJ 500 (All) has held that the apprentice candidates cannot claim exemption from the procedure of recruitment and have right to preference if other thing being equal. They have to compete with all other candidates, in written examination as also the interview as provided in the recruitment Rules and after selection they may be entitled only for preference if other things being equal. Similar view has also been taken by this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 6841 of 1998 (Ramesh Dhar Dwivedi Vs. State of U.P. and Others) decided on 28.2.2006 and Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 33827 of 2011, Dharampal Sharma and others Vs. State of U.P. And others, decided on 16.08.2011.
7. In the ultimate conclusion the relief, as sought, in the writ petition cannot be granted. The writ petition lacks merit. Dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
Order Date :- 31.08.2012 AK