1.0 Rule. Ms. Maya Desai for Mr. MD Pandya, learned advocate waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondents in SCA Nos. 1154 of 2012, 11555 of 2012, 13223 of 2012, 15244 of 2012 and 2861 of 2012. Mr. Naidu, learned advocate waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondents in SCA No. 11557 of 2012 and 13220 of 2012.
2.0 In these petitions a common issue is involved and therefore all these petitions are heard and disposed by way of this common judgment. All these petitioners had prayed for a direction for issuance of order of appointment by holding and declaring that the period after preparation of the select list till the completion of the age of 40 years should be ignored for all purposes and the petitioners should not be denied appointment on the ground that they are over age.
3.0 According to the petitioners they were called for necessary training and after completion of training their names were included in the select list. In fact the petitioners were apprentice with concerned respondent companies under the Apprentice Act. As per the practice a common list of apprentices who have successfully completed the apprenticeship training from the date of their completion of apprenticeship was prepared. However, the petitioners were not appointed on the ground that they are have become over aged.
4.0 Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners contended that they were made to write an application showing that they have become over age and thereafter their case was rejected on that ground.
5.0 Learned Advocate for the petitioners further submitted that the decision taken by the respondents is contrary to the provisions of law and the age relaxation ought to have been given and the same should be considered when they had been given training or their names were entered in the list of apprentice. It is further submitted that such action of denying the appointment is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
6.0 Learned Advocate for the petitioners relied upon decisions in the case of P.R. Moghariya Versus District Judge reported in 1993(2)GLR 1939, in case of (Dr.) Kamal Singh Bengal Versus Gujarat Public Service Commission reported in 1991(2)G.L.H (U.J) 3 wherein it was held that when the candidates applied for the post within the age limit prescribed but became over age on the date of his actual appointment, they cannot be disqualified and eligibility as to age is referable to the last date specified from making application and not the date when actual appointment is given. He further placed reliance on the decisions on similar principles in case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and another Versus U.P. Parivahan Nigam Shishukhs Berozgar Sangh & Ors. reported in AIR 1995 SC 1115, in case of S.Govindaraju versus K.S.R.T.C. & another reported in AIR 1986 SC 1680.
7.0 Learned Advocates appearing for the respondents submitted that the petitioners have no case and they cannot be appointed on the post in question in view of the fact that they are over age. It is submitted that the respondents had engaged the petitioners as apprentice under the Apprentice Act, 1961 and the respondents have no obligation for appointment after completion of training.
8.0 Learned Advocates for the respondents submitted that the issues involved in the present petitions are squarely covered by the decision of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in Special Civil Application No.5302 of 1997 and also the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jamaluddin Versus State of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors. reported in AIR 2012 SC 291.
9.0 It is further submitted that as per the practice adopted by the respondentcompany, a common list of apprentice, who had successfully completed the apprenticeship training is maintained from the date of their completion of apprenticeship at the Corporate Office. In some case, the candidates in the list are appointed as Vidhyut Sahayaks (Helper) against the vacancies in the cadre of Helper as per their turn. The roster category candidates are appointed against the roster requirements on preferential basis whereas against general requirement, candidates in the list are appointed as per their turn. As per the Rules of the respondentcompany, upper age limit for general category candidate for appointment of Helper/Vidhut Sayahak is 35 years and for reserved category candidates, the age relaxation is given up to 40 years. It is further submitted that the candidates as available in the list are appointed only against clear vacancies and if a candidate cross upper age limit 35 years or 40 years, as the case may be he would not be appointed for the said reason and the circular pertaining to the said policy are annexed as AnnexureR2 to the reply. Learned Advocates therefore submitted that the petition deserve to be dismissed.
10.0 Heard learned advocates for the respective parties at length and perused the relevant documents on record. The fact remains that the petitioners were appointed as apprentices under the Apprentice Act, 1961 and they are ascertaining their rights almost after 17 years. It is not their claim as a matter of right they are required to be appointed as it is only apprenticeship list.
11.0 The basic stand of the petitioners is that they are entitled to appointment on the strength of their having undergone the requisite training as apprentice in relevant trade having requisite certificate contemplated by the Apprentice Act and the Rules. It is required to be noted that even if a person is fully qualified for appointment as to any post, his right is only a right to be considered for appointment and not a right to appointment. Mere acquiring requisite qualification required for a post does not confer any right upon such a person to get appointment even if he is put on a list of qualified candidates, nor is there any duty cast upon the respondent to appoint such a person.
12.0 The appointment of apprentices and issuance of certificate on completion of such a training is governed by the Apprentice Act, 1961. Section 21 of the Act enjoins upon every trade apprentice who has completed the period of training to appear for a test to be conducted by the National Council for Vocational Training to determine his proficiency in the designated trade in which he has undergone his apprenticeship training. On successfully passing such test the trade apprentice shall be entitled for certificate of proficiency to be granted by the Council. Thus unless an apprentice completes the training and passes the trade test conducted by the Council and on passing the test receives the certificate of proficiency given by the Council, he cannot claim to have completed apprenticeship as envisaged under the Act. Mere completion of apprenticeship training is not sufficient to be qualified as proficient in particular trade. It is required to be noted that Section 18 of the Act envisages that apprentices are the Trainees and not the employees of the employers.
12.1 Section 22 of the Act provides, inter alia, that neither the employer shall be under obligation to offer employment to the apprentice nor the apprentice shall be under obligation to accept employment under the employer. I am therefore of the view that the petitioners, as a matter of right cannot claim for the appointment.
13.0 As regards the age limit is concerned the same is fixed for general category as also reserved category. If age limit for general category is 35 years no person above 35 years can be appointed. Under any circumstances the respondents cannot go beyond the specified Rules as regards age in the matter of appointment.
14.0 Learned Advocates for the petitioners fail to pointed out anything from the record that the respondents are bound to relax age to give appointment to the person from the list even though they had crossed the age limit.
15.0 It was noticed that in many cases earlier age relaxation was granted and thereupon in many cases those persons who used to apply for age relaxation were granted such age relaxation and therefore the senior to such persons who did not apply were not given the benefit of age relaxation. These created an anomalous situation and therefore a decision was taken not to extend age relaxation in any case. Such decision was confirmed by this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 19 of 2008 dated 03.03.2008. In the said decision it is held as under: “...It is pursuant to the said order and subsequent circular issued in that behalf, the apprentices who are eligible appointment to various technical posts are enlisted for of employment as and when the vacancy arises. Under the orders, apprentices are mere source of recruitment but apprentices are neither offered employment nor do they can right to employment upon the apprentices. Their appointment would necessarily be governed by the relevant recruitment rules. As per the relevant requirement for appointment to post under the Board in ClassIV service, the maximum prescribed under the general standing order no. 7 dated October, 1960 is 25 years. However, in case of apprentices, said age has been extended to 35 years i.e. on the date offer of employment the concerned apprentice shall not be more than 35 year s of age. In the present case, indisputably, appellant had crossed the age of 35 years on the relevant date. The appellant, therefore, was not offered employment.
In our view, the appellant failed ot answer the requirement employment in the Board. He was rightly refused the employment. No case for interference is made out. The appeal is dismissed in limine”
16.0 In Special Civil Application No. 5302 of 1997 rendered on 16.10.1997 this Court held as under: “3. It is further stated that by circular dated 26.2.1990 the Board decided that with a view to utilise the training imparted,the upper age limit be relaxed upto 35 years in case of apprentice Linemen (who can be appointed as Helpers on regular basis) and upto 29 yearsi n case of Commercial Trade apprentice (who can be appointed as Junior Assistants) on regular establishment). It is further stated that the petitioner had taken the apprenticeship training as an apprentice Lineman and as such he could not be appointed as Helper. With respect to relaxation of age, it is stated that the said age limit has been relaxed upto 35 years in case of candidates from general category and 40 years in case of reserved category. The petitioner belongs to the General category. He has even crossed the age of 35 years i.e even the relaxed age, and therefore, he is over age.
4. Mr. Tushar Mehta, the learned Advocate appearing for GEB, dealing with the case of Mr. Jadeja, submits that earlier there was power with the Chairman and the Board for further relaxation of age, but having received complaints of misuse, the Board took a firm decision that there shall be no relaxation after the relaxed age of 35 years in case of general category and 30 years in case of reserved category. Mr. P.H. Pathak, learned Advocate submits that a reading of the circular dated 26.2.1990 will show that the age limit 35 years is not that of relaxed age limit, and therefore, relaxation could be given beyond 35 years.
5. I have read the circular. The construction of the circular as placed by Mr. Pathak cannot be accepted. So far as the case of Jadeja is concerned, that was done prior to December, 1996 and in view of the latest circular dated 16.1.1997, now the Chairman and the Board has no power to give further relaxation.”
17.0 In Letters Patent Appeal No. 1975 of 1999 rendered on 17.9.2002 this Court held as under: “It would be profitable to refer, at this juncture, to the provisions of 'the Apprentices Act, 1961' (the Act for short). Section 20 of the Act provides for alternative redressal forum for the resolution of the dispute between an employer and an apprentice arising out of the contract of apprenticeship. It could be referred to the Apprenticeship Advisor for decision. Even the decision of the Apprenticeship Advisor is subject to challenge by the aggrieved party before the Apprenticeship Council. It is not understood as to why such alternative dispute resolution mechanism, statutorily provided in the Apprentices Act, is not availed of.
Apart from that, even if it is not generating out of apprenticeship contract then also, admittedly, the appointment was age barred and relaxation of age generally for an individual dehors the policy of the respondent Board, obviously, could not be encouraged. Section 22 of the Apprentices Act provides that it shall not be obligatory on the part of the employer to offcer employment to any apprentices who has completed the period of his apprenticeship. Therefore, it cannot be allowed to contend that the right to be appointed on the establishment of the employer with whom one has started working as an apprentice, is legally supportable. In fact, an apprentice is not an employee. He only a trainee and unless he is offered employment by the employer, he would continue to be an apprentice and not the employer.
After having given our anxious consideration of the facts and circumstances and the relevant proposition of law and the text, context and textures of the impugned judgment and the relevant provisions of the Apprentice Act, we find that the appeal on hand, by invoking the provisions of clause 15 of the Letters Patent is merit less deserving only and only one fact, that is, of dismissal, at the admission stage. Accordingly, the appeal shall stand dismissed with no order as to costs. Notice discharged.”
18.0 I have also gone through the decisions cited by learned advocates for the petitioners. However, in view of the abovementioned facts and the ratio laid down in the decisions mentioned hereinabove, the decisions cited by the learned Advocate for the petitioners are not applicable to the facts of the present case.
19.0 In view of the above discussions, I do not find any merits in this petition, the petitions are therefore dismissed, rule is discharged with no order as to costs.
(K.S. JHAVERI, J.)] niru*