1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad
  4. /
  5. 1995
  6. /
  7. January

Mohd. Waseem vs U.P. State Electricity Board And ...

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad|30 November, 1995


1. Petitioner was appointed as apprentice draftsman under the provisions of Indian Apprenticeship Act in the service of U.P. Electricity Board on August 22, 1988 for a period of one year. After expiry of one year, the petitioner was not given any fresh appointment as such. However, on January 1, 1990 petitioner was appointed as tracer which is lower post to that of draftsman and he continued to work as such till March 31, 1990. After March 31, 1990, petitioner was not issued any fresh appointment, with the result petitioner continued to make representations but as no action whatsoever was taken on those representations, compelled the petitioner to file this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The prayer in the petition is that the respondent may be directed to appoint the petitioner to the post of draftsman/tracer with all consequential benefits. Counter affidavit has been filed wherein factual position as mentioned above, has not been disputed. It is admitted that the petitioner was appointed as apprentice in the respondents' board.
2. Sri A. Mannan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner argued that in view of the decision in the case U.P.S.R.T.C. and Ors. v. V. P. Parivahan Nigam Shishuks Berozgar Sangh and Ors. (1995-II-LLJ-854) petitioned is entitled to be appointed as draftsman/tracer in the respondents' board. It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents that the decision of Supreme Court in the case of U.P.S.R.T.C. (supra), is fully applicable in this case. Following that decision, I direct the respondents - board to consider the case of the petitioner provided there are vacant posts for appointment keeping in view of the following conditions:
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. Hargopal (1987-I-LLJ-545) 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 under- gone training could 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 person trained later. In between the trained apprentices, preference shall be given to those who are seniors.
5. However, I make it clear that while considering the case of petitioner for giving employment on a post, the rules laid down in the service regulations of Electricity Board shall be followed except that the petitioner would not be required to appear in any written examination, if any, provided by the regulations. Before considering the case of the petitioner, the requirement of his name being sponsored by the employment exchange would not be insisted upon. In so far as the age requirement is concerned, the same shall be relaxed as indicated above.
With these directions, the petition stands disposed off.
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.

Mohd. Waseem vs U.P. State Electricity Board And ...


High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad

30 November, 1995
  • V Khare