Back
[2006(2) ADJ 500(All)(DB)]
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
(Division Bench)
BEFORE : DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND DILIP GUPTA, JJ.
BHOODEV SINGH AND OTHERS ....Petitioners
Versus
U.P. STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND OTHERS .....Respondents
(Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 40958 of 1998,
decided on 31st January, 2006)
(B) Words and phrases—Preference—Meaning of. [Para 26]
(C) Interpretation of Statutes—Word “therein”—No word is redundant and every word in a statutory provision, is to be given an effective meaning, after determining intent of Legislature. [Paras 40 and 42]
(D) Appointment—Vacancies advertised—Absence of pleadings—No pleadings to find out, whether all vacancies, had been filled-up, or not—Difficult for Court to determine as to whether vacancies had been advertised as copy of advertisement has not been filed, whether said vacancies have already been filled-up, and who were candidates selected in that recruitment, as none of them, was a party before Court—No proper pleadings to determine controversy, involved in respect of such advertisements—Court/Tribunal, cannot decide a case going out of pleadings of parties, nor evidence led on a non-existing plea, was permitted to be taken into consideration—Moreover, Court cannot decide an issue, not raised/agitated by authority—Therefore, it was neither necessary, nor desirable to examine issue of subsequent recruitment process—Therefore, petition liable to be dismissed. [Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Order 1, Rules 1 and 3]. [Paras 51, 52, 53 and 54]
(E) Remand of case—Higher Court, setting aside judgment and order of Court below—And remand case—Only those parties, which had been before higher Court, can be heard, and no one else. [Para 14]
(F) Words and phrases—"Examine” and “Interview”—Meaning and difference between. [Paras 39 and 43]
(G) Appointment—Eligibility—Has to be determined, on last date of submission of application. [Para 45]
(H) Constitution of India, 1950—Articles 14 and 16—Statutory Rules/Regulations—Executive Instructions—In absence of any statutory Rules/Regulations, recruitment may be made on basis of Executive Instructions—And in absence thereof by following a procedure, which may be in consonance with mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution. [Para 56]
Honble Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.—This case arises out of a claim of the petitioners for their appointment as Junior Engineers and on respective posts of operating staff commensurate to the trades in which they claim themselves to be trained apprentices under the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Board Subordinate Electrical and Mechanical Engineering Service Regulations, 1972 (hereinafter called the ‘Regulations 1972). This petition had been decided earlier by a Division Bench judgment of this Court, whereafter the petitioners went up to the Supreme Court as a result whereof the judgment of this Court was set aside on 14th March, 2001 and the Hon’ble Apex Court has remanded the matter under the aforesaid judgment to this Court for deciding the case in accordance with the recruitment Rules which are applicable to the controversy. The Hon’ble Apex Court, while remanding the matter to this Court has, however, upheld and approved the ratio of the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Arvind Gautam v. State of U.P. & Ors., 1999 (2) ESC 1394 (All)(FB). The said Full Bench judgment also stood approved by the Apex Court in the case of U.P. Rajya Vidyut Parishad Apprentice Welfare Association & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors., (2000) 5 SCC 438.
2. The petitioners No. 1 and 2 claim that they had completed their training of Junior Engineer Apprentice and the petitioners No. 3 to 34 claim that they had completed their training as Operating Staff Apprentice while engaged with the Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Board, which now stands transformed to the Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited. Upon completion of their training, the respondent Electricity Department did not enter into any contract of employment with the petitioners who were claiming appointment as being qualified under Section 2 of the Apprentices Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the ‘Act 1961). The Electricity Department issued an advertisement on 17.10.1998 inviting applications for filling up the vacancies of Junior Engineers, Sub-Station Officers, Fitters, Draftsman Mechanical, Machinists, Lineman, Plumbers, Instrument Mechanic, Wireman, Diesel Mechanic, Boiler Operators, Electricians and other posts.
3. The petitioners, who were claiming preference by way of direct appointment having received training as apprentice, instituted the present writ petition after publication of the aforesaid advertisement praying principally for the following relief:
“issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the appointment of the candidates on the respective posts and in which they are trained apprentices giving the preference, ignoring the age bar and giving them preference over the candidates who are not trained apprentices.”
4. When the matter was heard on the earlier occasion, one of the issues, that was raised, was as to whether the petitioners who had completed their apprentice training were required to face any written examination for the purposes of their selection. This petition was, therefore, tagged along with the petition of Arvind Gautam v. State of U.P. & Ors., and a Full Bench was constituted to resolve the said issue which was answered by the Full Bench in the decision reported in 1999 (2) ESC 1394 (supra). This writ petition was also called out before the same Full Bench and after noting that learned Counsel for the petitioners was not present, the Full Bench disposed of this writ petition on 27.5.1999 by the following order :
“The case has been called out.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner is not present.
The controversy involved in this petition is identical to the one raised in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 23076 of 1998, Arvind Gautam v. State of U.P. and others, decided and disposed of by this Bench by the order of date.
Thus, this writ petition also is decided and disposed of in terms of and subject to the decision of the date rendered in the case of Arvind Gautams v. State of U.P. and others
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
