1. The petitioner had got his name registered in the Employment Exchange as a skilled worker. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents, Central Ordnance Factory, Ministry of Defence, are not calling the candidates from the Employment Exchange while making appointments. But they are giving preference in employment to the Trade Apprentice, who are trained by them. Therefore, the petitioner prays for a direction from this Court to the respondents that for future vacancies candidates must be called for from the Employment Exchange and appointments to be made as per the list.

2. On behalf of the respondents, a counter affidavit dated 20.9.2006 was filed. In that, they had stated that the department is guided by the instructions issued by the Ministry of Labour dated 26.2.1996 and following the decision of the Honble Supreme Court, they have been recruiting the candidates strictly from the waiting list of Ex-Trade Apprentices of the second respondent factory. Already, the waiting list of candidates kept with them is more than the requirement and therefore, the question of calling candidates from the Employment Exchange does not arise.

3. Attention of this Court was also brought to a letter issued by the second respondent dated 13.1.2006 wherein the petitioner in W.P.(MD) No.9722 of 2005 was also informed the correct position with reference to the recruitment procedure. The following paragraphs found in the said letter are relevant to the context, which are extracted below:

"6. Accordingly, OFT has been considering Trade Apprentices trained from this factory for appointment. As already there is a huge waiting list available in the factory, deviating from the instructions and in the letter issued by the Ministry of Labour and Ordnance Factory Board, other candidates can not be considered, OFT can no consider the case of Shri. T.Ganapathy as he has not been trained by this factory and he has not undergone apprentices hip at OFT.

7. For the reasons brought out above that in the matter of appointment of Skilled Tradesmen in the factory, apprentices already trained by the factory only can be given preference and only when apprentices trained by the factory are not available, notification will be made to the Employment Exchange..."

4. In asense, the stand of the respondents are that there is a guarantee of employment for the apprentices trained by the factory as they are well trained to the work of the factory and the outsiders like petitioner cannot seek to disturb the present arrangement in the absence of any illegality or irregularity.

5. In the light of the stand taken by the respondents, the learned counsel brought to the notice of this Court a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in K. Venkadesan v. Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Neyveli Lignite Corporation and others [2007 (3) CTC 161] (to which I am a party), held after referring to the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and another v. U.P. Parivathan Nigam Shighukha Burosgar Santh and others 1995 (2) SCC 1, and further judgment of the Honble Supreme Court made in Civil Appeal Nos.5285 to 5328 of 1996 dated 3.10.1996 Tamil Nadu Electricity Board v. P. Arul and others, that Apprentices/Trainees shall have to go through the process of selection provided under the Service Regulations/Rules. Keeping in view the fact that the Apprentices acquire training under the same management, they are not required to sit in the written test. A trained Apprentice will have a preference over the direct recruitment if other things are being equal.

6. Per contra, it was argued that if there was employment guarantee for the trained apprentices, then Section 22 (2) of the Apprentices Act 1961 will come into operation and the same reads as follows:

"22. Offer and acceptance of employment-(1) 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 ap