1. The petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondents to issue an order appointing him on the post of Junior Assistant Technician (Production). Admittedly, the sole basis for making the claim for appointment is that he had taken training under the respondent as an apprentice and several other similarly situated apprentices were appointed.
By filing an affidavit of Senior H.R. Executive of the respondent Corporation, it is stated that the Corporation had, in line with its modified Recruitment and Promotions Rules as well as Circulars issued thereunder, sought to draw a panel for appointing persons as Junior Assistant Technician (Production), and as per the guidelines, the criteria adopted by the Selection Committee was 40 marks for qualification and 60 marks for test/interview. It was necessary that each candidate was required to score at least 50% marks in interview, and in the aggregate. Out of the various applications received for appointment on the post, the respondent had called 362 applicants for test/interview and from that, a total of 205 candidates had actually appeared. The Selection Committee had then made panels of 55 general candidates, 15 SC candidates, 11 ST candidates and 13 OBC candidates, and thus out of 205 candidates only 94 had qualified and were empaneled for appointment as and when required. Under the Regulations of the Corporation, any panel created for appointment would be valid for six months with a further extension of six months. The petitioner was duly considered along with other candidates, but he did not meet the criteria, he was not empaneled and hence there was no question of the petitioner being issued any appointment order as prayed, according to the affidavit-in-reply.
2. Having regard to the above facts, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon three Judge Bench decision of the Apex Court in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation & Anr. v.
U.P. Parivahan Nigam Shishukhs Berozgar Sangh & Ors., to submit that, other things being equal, a trained apprentice should be given preference over direct recruittee. Learned counsel for the respondent relied upon later judgment of another three Judge Bench of the Apex Court in U.P. State Electricity Board v. Shiv Mohan Singh & Anr., [(2004) 8 SCC 402] to submit that it is not obligatory on part of the employer to give employment to the apprentice. Since the petitioner was, in the facts of the present case afforded an opportunity to be selected and he has not been selected after holding an interview no right, much less a vested right, to be employed by the respondent had arisen in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, the petition is dismissed and Rule is discharged with no order as to costs.
(vipul) (D. H. WAGHELA, J.)