2005 Supreme(SC) 18

2005(1) Supreme 64
Supreme Court of India
(From Orissa High Court)
R.C. Lahoti, CJI., G.P. Mathur, J.
Chairman/M.D., Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. and Ors. —Appellants
versus
Sri Sadashib Behera and Ors. —Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 30 of 2005
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 4243 of 2003)
Decided on 5-1-2005
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : Janaranjan Das, Swetaketu Mishra and Ms. Moushumi Gahlot, Advocates.­
For the Respondents : A.K. Panda, Sr. Advocate, Ms. Mridul Aggarwal and R.P. Wadhawani, Advocates.

Important pointIt is not open to the High Court to issue a writ for disregarding the reservation policy which had been enforced by the notification issued by Government of India and then to give appointment to a general category ­candidate on a post which is meant for a reserved category candidate.

Headnote:Apprenticeship Act, 1961—Sections 2(aa), 2(aaa), 4, 6, 7 and 22—Apprenticeship Rules 1991—Rule 6—Apprentice who has completed period of his apprenticeship training—It shall not be obligatory on the part of employer to offer any employment to such apprentice—An apprentice cannot claim any right to get an employment on successful completion of his training—Respondent 1 passed certificate examination in welders trade from Industrial Training Institute in year 1992 —Thereafter, he did one year apprenticeship training in welders trade with Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd.—Some appointments were to be made in Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. for which purpose respondent was called for interview—However, he was not given any appointment order—Respondent filed writ petition for commanding appellants to give him appointment on the post of welder—High Court allowed writ petition holding that there were 9 vacancies on the post of welder, out of which 5 were reserved for general category—Writ petitioner’s placement in the merit list was 5th and as the person who was placed at number 4 had not joined, he was entitled for being appointed—Review petition filed by appellant mainly on ground that there were only 7 sanctioned posts of welders—It was submitted that from year 1998 onwards, workload had considerably reduced—Whether High Court was justified in dismissing the review petition—(No)—Petitioner could not claim any right to be given an appointment having regard to the reservation policy applicable to appellant’s establishment.

       Held : In our opinion, the view taken by the High Court is clearly unsustainable. It is not disputed that in fact only 7 posts in the welders trade had been sanctioned by the competent authority. The judgment dated 7.12.1999 by which the writ petition had been disposed of earlier had proceeded on the basis that there were 9 sanctioned posts out of which 5 posts were meant for general category and the writ petitioner (respondent No.1 in the present appeal) having secured 5th rank in the said category, he was entitled to be given an appointment. The appellants filed the review petition explaining the mistake which had occurred on account of the fact that a document which was merely a proposal made to the higher authorities for sanctioning the post was treated to be an order of sanction of posts. When the sanctioned posts were only 7, the writ petitioner could not claim any right to be given an appointment having regard to the reservation policy which was applicable to the establishment of Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. on account of the notification issued by Government of India. The direction issued by the High Court in the impugned order to the effect that one of the two reserved posts lying vacant be de-reserved and appointment be given to respondent No. 1 is, therefore, erroneous. The appellants are fully bound by the reservation policy and it is not open to the High Court to issue a writ for disregarding the said reservation policy which had been enforced by the notification issued by Government of India and then to give appointment to a general category candidate on a post which is meant for a reserved category candidate. (Para 5)

       Section 22 in the Act and sub-section (1) thereof lays down that it shall not be obligatory on the part of the employer to offer any employment to any apprentice who has completed the period of his apprenticeship training. Sub-section (2) however provides that notwithstanding anything in sub-section (1) where there is a condition in a contract of apprenticeship that apprentice shall, after successful completion of apprenticeship training, serve the employer, the employer shall, on such completion, be bound to offer suitable employment to the apprentice, and the apprentice shall be bound to serve the employer in that capacity for such period and on such remuneration as may be specified in the contract. Thus the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder show that in absence of any condition in the contract which is entered into between the employer and the apprentice at the time of commencement of his apprenticeship training and which is registered with the Apprenticeship Adviser to the effect that the apprentice shall serve the employer, an apprentice cannot claim any right to get an employment on successful completion of his training. It is not the case of the respondent No. 1 that in the contract of apprenticeship there was any condition that after completion of training he would serve the employer and in absence of such a condition, the employer namely the appellants are not bound to offer any employment to them. In absence of any legal right inhering in the writ petitioner (respondent No. 1 herein) no writ of mandamus could be issued commanding the appellants to give an ­appointment to him on the post of welder. (Para 8)