- (1.) Heard Sri I.M. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that petitioner has completed Apprenticeship training. For regular appointment the respondent-Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited (hereinafter referred to as the "BHEL"), a Government of India undertaking, though proceeded to appoint apprentices, junior to petitioner, but petitioner was not called for interview and has not been appointed. It is contended that petitioner has a right in equity and otherwise and, therefore, non-appointment of petitioner is wholly illegal. It is further submitted that in equity or under the Rules, either way, petitioner, has a matter of right, was/is entitled to be appointed on a regular technical post in Electronic Trade having completed apprenticeship training.
(3.) The submission is thoroughly misconceived. I find that it is based on directions issued by Apex Court in UPSRTC Employees Federation vs. UPSRTC, 1995 2 JT 26 wherein the Court laid down four conditions which have to be observed by an employer in respect to apprentices who had undergone apprenticeship training: (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 vs. Hargopal, 1987 AIR(SC) 1227 would permit this. (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. (iv) The concerned training institute would maintain a list of the persons trained year wise. The persons trained earlier would be treated senior to the persons trained later. In between the trained apprentice, preference shall be given to those who are senior.;