Back
1999 Supreme(All) 838
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
D. S. Sinha, M. Katju and Alok Chakrabarti, JJ.
ARVIND GAUTAM - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - Respondents
C. M. W. P. 23076 Of 1998
Decided On : 05/27/1999
R.C.PATHAK
The directives of the Supreme Court judgment in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. U.P. Parivahan Nigam Shishuksh Berozgar Sangh and others, JT 1995 (2) SC 26, are not confined to U.P.S.R.T.C. alone but they are applicable to all departments and corporations, but the directives in paragraph 13 of the said judgment apply strictly to the persons whose cases came up for consideration before the Apex Court in the said matter, and not to others.
Headnote:
APPRENTICESHIP - INTERPRETATION OF SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT - APPLICABILITY TO ALL DEPARTMENTS AND CORPORATIONS - PREFERENCE TO TRAINED APPRENTICES - EXEMPTION FROM COMPETITIVE TEST - APPLICABILITY OF ARTICLE 16 OF THE CONSTITUTION - CIRCULAR DATED 12.9.1996 - VALIDITY.
Fact of the Case:
A Full Bench was constituted to examine and decide whether the directives of the Supreme Court judgment in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. U.P. Parivahan Nigam Shishuksh Berozgar Sangh and others, JT 1995 (2) SC 26, should be confined to U.P.S.R.T.C. alone or they are applicable to all departments or all corporations.
Finding of the Court:
The directives of the Supreme Court judgment in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. U.P. Parivahan Nigam Shishuksh Berozgar Sangh and others, JT 1995 (2) SC 26, are not confined to U.P.S.R.T.C. alone but they are applicable to all departments and corporations, but the directives in paragraph 13 of the said judgment apply strictly to the persons whose cases came up for consideration before the Apex Court in the said matter, and not to others.
Issues: 1. Whether the directives of the Supreme Court judgment in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. U.P. Parivahan Nigam Shishuksh Berozgar Sangh and others, JT 1995 (2) SC 26, should be confined to U.P.S.R.T.C. alone or they are applicable to all departments or all corporations. 2. Whether the judgment of the Division Bench in Vivek Guptrishi v. State of U.P. and another. Writ Petition No. 37922 of 1997, decided on 12.11.1997, should be reconsidered. 3. Whether the matter should be considered in the context of Article 16 of the Constitution. 4. Whether the circular dated 12.9.1996 has proceeded on a misconception.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Supreme Court judgment in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. U.P. Parivahan Nigam Shishuksh Berozgar Sangh and others, JT 1995 (2) SC 26, considered the law relating to apprentices in detail and laid down general propositions applicable to all apprentices. 2. The directives in paragraph 12 of the said judgment provide that other things being equal, a trained apprentice should be given preference over direct recruits, and that they should be exempted from the requirement of getting their name sponsored by an employment exchange and should be given relaxation in the age bar to the extent of the period of their apprenticeship. 3. The expression "other things being equal" in paragraph 12 and the absence of exemption from competitive test in the said paragraph lead to the conclusion that all persons (including the apprentices) have to appear in the competitive test, as may be prescribed in respect of the particular selection, and if after the competitive test, any apprentice trainee gets equal marks than a non-apprentice candidate, then only preference is to be given to the said apprentice trainee. 4. The circular dated 12.9.1996, which directed to follow the directions contained in paragraph 12 of the said judgment of the Apex Court, is held to have not proceeded on any misconception, but it must be read in the light of the observations made above.
Final Decision: The writ petition and the connected writ petitions are disposed of accordingly.
( 1 ) THIS Full Bench has been constituted by Honble the Chief Justice on a reference made by one of us (Honble M. Katju. J.) by order dated 20. 7. 1998 in Writ Petition No. 23076 of 1998 and upon the reference made in Writ Petition No. 24009 of 1998 by order dated 27. 7. 1998.
( 2 ) WE have heard learned counsel for the parties. The question referred to us relates to the interpretation of the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in U. P. State Road Transport corporation and another v. U. P. Parivahan Nigam Shishuksh Berozgar Sangh and others. AIR 1995 SC 1115.
( 3 ) A perusal of the reference order indicates that the questions which fall for consideration are as follows :
(1) to examine and decide whether the directives of the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of U. P. State Road Transport Corporation v. U. P. Parivahan Nigam Shishuksha Berozgar Sangh and others, JT 1995 (2) SC 26, should be confined to U. P. S. R. T. C. alone or they are applicable to all departments or all corporations.
(2) to reconsider the judgment of the Division Bench in Vivek Guptrishi v. State of U. P. and another. Writ Petition No. 37922 of 1997, decided on 12. 11. 1997.
(3) to consider the matter in the context of Article 16 of the Constitution, and (4) to decide whether the circular dated 12. 9. 1996 has proceeded on a misconception. Re : Question No. 1
( 4 ) A perusal of the Judgment of the Apex Court clearly indicates that the law relating to apprentices have been considered in detail in the said judgment and the general proposition in respect of all apprentices has been considered and decided therein. The findings of the Apex court on the basis of discussion relating to various sections of the Apprentice Act have been recorded in paragraph 12 of the said Judgment which reads as follows :
"12. In the background of what has been noted above, we state that the following would be kept in mind while dealing with the claim of trainees to get employment after successful completion of their training :
(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, AIR 1987 SC 1227, 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 undergone training would be given.
(4) The concerned training institute would maintain a list of the persons trained yearwise. The persons trained earlier would be treated as senior to the persons trained later. In between the trained apprentices, preference shall be given to those who are senior. "
( 5 ) A question has been raised as regards exemption of apprentice trainee from competitive test for direct recruitment as referred to in paragraph 13. The initial expression in paragraph 13 of the said judgment clearly indicates that the said observations in paragraph 13 were in the specific factual background of the "cases in hand" in the said proceeding. Specific affidavits have been considered in the said paragraphs. A perusal of the directives in paragraph 12 of the said judgment makes it clear that the only benefits apprentices are held to be entitled to exemption from recommendation by the employment exchange and relaxation as regards age bar to the extent of the period of their apprenticeship.
( 6 ) IN our view, the expression "other things being equal" in paragraph 12 and absence of exemption from competitive test in the said paragraph, leads to the conclusion that all persons (including the apprentices) have to appear in the competitive test, as may be prescribed in respect of the particular selection, and if after the competitive test, any apprentice trainee gets equal ma
