CHAIRMAN/M.D. MAHANADI COALFIELDS LTD. AND ORS. versus SRI SADASHIB BEHERA AND ORS.

Citation: [2005] 1 S.C.R. 60 · Decided: 05-01-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.C. LAHOTI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
CHAIRMAN/M.D. MAHAN ADI COALFIELDS LTD. AND ORS. 
V. 
SRI SADASHIB BEHERA AND ORS. 
JANUARY 5, 2005 
B 
[R.C. LAHOTI, CJ. AND G.P. MATHUR, J.] 
Service Law: 
Apprenticeship Act, 1961; Ss. 2(aa), 4, 6, 22/Apprenticeship Rules, 1991; 
C Rule 6 and Schedules V & VJ thereunder: 
Appointment for the post of Welder-Respondent/apprentice not declared 
successful-Challenge to-High Court issued directions to appointing authority 
for appointment of the incumbent by dereservation of one of the posts--On 
D appeal, Held: Having regard to reservation policy, directions issued by the 
High Court erroneous-In the absence of any condition of appointment in the 
apprentice contract between employer and the incumbent, the incumbent-
apprentice could not claim right to appointment on that ground-Since no 
legal right vested with the incumbent, writ of mandamus could not be issued 
commanding the employer to give him appointment-Constitution of India, 
E 1950-Article 226. 
Respondent No. 1 did apprenticeship training in the Welders trade 
with the appellant company. Later, he was called for interview by the 
company for appointment for the post of Welder, but was not appointed. 
He filed a writ petition for issuance of writ of mandamus directing the 
F appellant to order for his appointment for the said post. High Court issued 
directions to the company for his appointment. Review Petition filed by 
the company was dismissed by the High Court. Hence the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
G 
HELD: 1.1. The view taken by the High Court is clearly 
unsustainable. It is not disputed that in fact only 7 posts in the welders 
trade has been sanctioned by the competent authority. However, the High 
Court had proceeded on the basis that there were 9 sanctioned posts out 
of which 5 posts were meant for general category and the writ petitioner 
H 
60 
CHAIRMAN/M.D. MAHANADI COALFIELDS LTD.1•. S. BEHERA [MATHUR, .I] 
61 
(respondent no.I) having secured 5th rank in the said category, he was A 
entitled to be given an appointment. 163-Cf 
1.2. The provisions of the Apprenticeship Act and the Apprenticeship 
Rules made thereunder show that in absence of any condition in the 
contract which is entered into between the employer and the apprentice 
at the time of commencement of his apprenticeship training and which is B 
registered with the Apprenticeship adviser to the effect that the apprentice 
shall serve the employer, an apprentice cannot claim any right to get an 
employment on successful completion of his training. It is not the case of 
the writ petitioner that in the contract of apprenticeship there was any 
condition that after completion of training he would serve the employer C 
and in absence of such a condition, the employer, appellants are not bound 
to offer any employment to them. Thus, in the absence of any legal right, 
writ of mandamus could not be issued. 165-A-B-C) 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 30 ;if 2005. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.11.2002 of the Orissa High 
Court in C.R. No. 159 of 2000. 
Janaranjan Das, Swetaketu Mishra and Ms. Moushumi Gahlot for the 
Appellants. 
A.K. Panda Ms. Mridul Aggrawal and R.P. Wadhwani for the 
Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
G.P. MA THUR, J. I. Leave granted. 
2. This petition, by special leave, has been preferred against the judgment 
and order dated 21.11.2002 ofOrissa High Court by which the review petition 
filed by the appellants for reviewing the order dated 7 .12.1999 was disposed 
of with certain directions. 
3. Respondent No.I, Sadashib Behera passed certificate examination in 
welders trade from Industrial Training Institute in the year 1992. Thereafter, 
D 
E 
F 
G 
-'. 
he did one year apprenticeship training in the welders trade with Mahanadi 
Coalfields Ltd. It appears that some appointments were to be made in Mahanadi 
Coalfields Ltd. for which purpose he was called for interview, but he was not 
given any appointment order. He then filed a writ petition under Article 226 H 
62 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2005] I S.C.R. 
A of the Constitution being OJC No.13025 of 1996, praying that a writ of 
mandamus be issued commanding the appellants in the present appeal to give 
him appointment on the post of Welder. Reference in the writ petition was 
made to the judgment and order dated 3.9.1996 of the High Court passed in 
OJC No.644 of 1996 which indicated that some vacancies still existed in the 
B establishment. The

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.