High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Chhotkan Mishra And Others v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 5406 of 2006  RD-AH 2231 (30 January 2006)
Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J
Heard counsel for the parties.
The petitioners are graduates. They claim that they have completed practical training of Apprentice Clerk Grade I under the U.P. Power Corporation Ltd- respondent no. 2. They claim that they should be given preference in appointment as well as relaxation in age in accordance with the guidelines laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in paragraph 12 of the decision in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and another V. U.P. Parivahan Nigam shishukk Berojgar Sangh and others, which is as under :-
" 12. In the background of what has been noted above, we stated that the following would be kept in mind while dealing with the claim of the trainees to get employment after successful completion of their training :
i) Other things being equal, a trained apprentice should be given preference over direct recuits.
ii) 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. N. Hargopal would permit this.
iii) If age bar would come in the way of the trainees, the same would be relaxed, if any, in the Service Rule concerned, 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.
iv) That training institution concerned would maintain a list of the persons trained year-wise. The persons trained earlier would be treated as senior to the persons trained later on between the trained apprentices, preference should be given to those who are senior."
It is urged by counsel for the petitioner that Full Bench of this Court had in Arvind Gautam Vs. State of U.P. and others 1999(2) U.P.L.B.E.C-1397 considered the effect of all the Government orders issued regarding appointment/adjustment of the apprentices and for giving preference to them in the matter of appointment. He submits that in the aforesaid decision, it was held by the Full Bench in the facts and circumstances of that case, apprentices were not entitled for any preference but in appeal preferred before Hon'ble the Apex Court, the matter was remanded back for decision afresh.
The judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court is binding on all Courts under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. It is admitted by counsel for the petitioners that at present no recruitment process is going on. Neither any vacancy has been advertised nor any recruitment process is going on hence the petitioners have also not allied against any post for which they may be eligible.
In the circumstances, I am of the view that the writ petition is premature and has been filed non-existent cause of action which may occur in future. If any vacancy arises in future, the same may be filled up in accordance with the guidelines laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in paragraph 12 of the decision in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and another (supra). At present, no such direction is necessary, as judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court is binding on all Courts under Article 141 of the Constitution of India, as observed above. If any vacancies are advertised and recruitment process is initiated, the may also apply and may be considered in accordance with law, if they are eligible.
The writ petition is devoid of merits and accordingly dismissed, as premature. No order as to costs.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.