U.P. RAJYA VIDYUT PARISHAD APPRENTICE WELFARE ASSOCIATION AND ANRversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ORS.

      .(




.,-
    ,,              U.P. RAJYA VIDYUT PARISHAD APPRENfICE WELFARE                               A
~
                                  ASSOCIATION AND ANR.
                                            v.
                            STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ORS.

                                             MAYS, 2000
                                                                                                B
                           [M. JAGANNADHARAO AND M.B. SHAH, JJ.]


                   Service Law :

                    U.P. Road Transport Corporation-Apprentices governed by Appren-
             tices Act, 1961-Regular appointment of-Criteria-Examination/lnterview of           c
             appnmtic!!-High Court holding that direction in Transport Corporation's case
             that Trainees need not undertake examination was applicable only to petition-
         ~   ers in that case, and that the apprentices are to go through the examination and
             interview as provided in the Recruitment Rules-Held, High Court was correct
             in its view-However apprentices are entitled to benefits of entiries (i) to (iv)   D
             laid down in Transport Corporation Case.

                   Transport Corporation v. U.P. Parivahan Nigam Shiksham Berozgar
             Sangh, [1995) 2 SCC 1, reiterated.

                  Arvind Gautam v. State of U.P. & Ors., (1999) 2 U.P. LEBC 1397 and            E
             Manoj Kumar Mishra v. State of U.P. & Ors., (1997) 2 UP LEBC 1374,
             approved.

                  CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave Petition (C) No.
             7406 of 2000.
                                                                                                F
                  From the Judgment and Order dated 12.11.99 of the Allahabad High
             Court in S.A. (W.P.) No. 149 (SB) of 1998.

                   K.R. Nagaraja for the Petitioners.

                   The following Order of the Court was delivered :
                                                                                                G
         )
                   After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, we are of the view that
             the decision of this Court in Transport Corporation v. U.P. Parivahan Nigam
             Shikshak Berozgar Sangh, [1995] 2 SCC page 1, has laid down clear criteria
             as to regular· appointment of apprentices governed by the Apprentices Act,
             1961. The relevant principles are as follows :                                     H
                                                  1201
    1202                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2000] 3 S.C.R.
A           (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 v. Hargopal, AIR (1987) 227, would permit this.
B
            (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.
c
            (iv) The concerned training institute would maintain a list of the
            person trained year wise. The persons trained earlier would be treated
            senior to the persons trained later. In between the trained apprentices,
            preference shall be given to those who are senior''.
D
          In the said judgment, this Court, however, observed at the end of para
    13 as follows :

            "In so far as the cases at hand are concerned, we find that the
            Corporation filed an additional affidavit in C.A. Nos. 4347-4354 of
E           1999 (as desired by the Court) on 20th October, 1992 giving position
            regarding vacancies in the posts of conductors and clerks. If such
            posts be still vacant, we directs the Corporation to act in accordance
            with what has been stated above regarding the entitlement of the
            trainees.

F           We make it clear that while considering the cases of the trainees for
            giving employment in suitable posts, what has been laid down in the
            Service Regulations of the Corporation shall be followed, except that
            the trainees would not be required to appear in any written examina-
            tion, if any provided by the Regulations. It is apparent that before
G           considering the cases of the trainees, the requirement of their names
            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".

          A question has arisen before the Allahabad High Court in a later case
H   as to whether the direction that the trainees need not undertake examination
      U.P. RAJYA VIDYT PARISHAD APPRENTICE WELFARE ASSOCIATION v. STATE      1203
    was applicable only to the petitioners in the case before this Court or whether   A
    pars 13 laid down any general principle that apprentices need not take the
    examination. This question went before a Full Bench of the Allahabad High
    Court in Arvind Gautam v. State of U.P. & Ors., (Civil Misc. Writ Petition
    No. 23076 of 1998), reported in (1999) 2 U.P. CBEL 1397. The Full Bench
    held that what was mentioned in para 13 was in the specific factual back-         B
    ground of the "cases on hand" and that the apprentices are to go through the
    examination as also the interview, as provided in the Recruitment Rules. The
    Full Bench had also approved the judgment in the case of Manoj Kumar
    Mishra v. State of U.P. & Ors., reported in (1997) 2 UP LEBC 1374 which
    took a similar view in regard to the interpretation of para 13 of the judgment
    of this Court mentioned above.                                                    c
          We, are, therefore, of the opinion that the view taken inManoj Kumar
    Mishra' s Case as also the view taken by the Full Bench in Arvind Gautam's
    case, (supra) is a correct one and that apprentices have to go through the
    procedure of examination/interview and that they are however entitled to the      D
    benefits of entires (i) to (iv) laid down in Transport Corporation case [1995]
    2 sec 1.

           For the reasons stated above, the Special Leave Petition is dismissed.

    R.P.                                                       Petition dismissed.




}