U.P. RAJYA VIDYUT PARISHAD APPRENTICE WELFARE ASSOCIATION AND ANR versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ORS.

Citation: [2000] 3 S.C.R. 1201 · Decided: 08-05-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. JAGANNADHA RAO, M.B. SHAH · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

.( 
,, 
U.P. RAJYA VIDYUT PARISHAD APPRENfICE WELFARE 
A 
.,-
~ 
ASSOCIATION AND ANR. 
v. 
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ORS. 
MAYS, 2000 
B 
[M. JAGANNADHARAO AND M.B. SHAH, JJ.] 
Service Law : 
U.P. Road Transport Corporation-Apprentices governed by Appren-
c 
tices Act, 1961-Regular appointment of-Criteria-Examination/lnterview of 
appnmtic!!-High Court holding that direction in Transport Corporation's case 
that Trainees need not undertake examination was applicable only to petition-
~ 
ers in that case, and that the apprentices are to go through the examination and 
interview as provided in the Recruitment Rules-Held, High Court was correct 
in its view-However apprentices are entitled to benefits of entiries (i) to (iv) 
D 
laid down in Transport Corporation Case. 
Transport Corporation v. U.P. Parivahan Nigam Shiksham Berozgar 
Sangh, [1995) 2 SCC 1, reiterated. 
Arvind Gautam v. State of U.P. & Ors., (1999) 2 U.P. LEBC 1397 and 
E 
Manoj Kumar Mishra v. State of U.P. & Ors., (1997) 2 UP LEBC 1374, 
approved. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave Petition (C) No. 
7406 of 2000. 
F 
From the Judgment and Order dated 12.11.99 of the Allahabad High 
Court in S.A. (W.P.) No. 149 (SB) of 1998. 
K.R. Nagaraja for the Petitioners. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
G 
) 
After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, we are of the view that 
the decision of this Court in Transport Corporation v. U.P. Parivahan Nigam 
Shikshak Berozgar Sangh, [1995] 2 SCC page 1, has laid down clear criteria 
as to regular· appointment of apprentices governed by the Apprentices Act, 
1961. The relevant principles are as follows : 
H 
1201 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
1202 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2000] 3 S.C.R. 
(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 v. Hargopal, AIR (1987) 227, 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 
person trained year wise. The persons trained earlier would be treated 
senior to the persons trained later. In between the trained apprentices, 
preference shall be given to those who are senior''. 
In the said judgment, this Court, however, observed at the end of para 
13 as follows : 
"In so far as the cases at hand are concerned, we find that the 
Corporation filed an additional affidavit in C.A. Nos. 4347-4354 of 
1999 (as desired by the Court) on 20th October, 1992 giving position 
regarding vacancies in the posts of conductors and clerks. If such 
posts be still vacant, we directs the Corporation to act in accordance 
with what has been stated above regarding the entitlement of the 
trainees. 
We make it clear that while considering the cases of the trainees for 
giving employment in suitable posts, what has been laid down in the 
Service Regulations of the Corporation shall be followed, except that 
the trainees would not be required to appear in any written examina-
tion, if any provided by the Regulations. It is apparent that before 
considering the cases of the trainees, the requirement of their names 
being sponsored by the employment exchange would not be insisted 
upon. In so far as the age requirement is concerned. the same shall 
be relaxed as indicated above". 
A question has arisen before the Allahabad High Court in a later case 
H 
as to whether the direction that the trainees need not undertake examination 
} 
U.P. RAJYA VIDYT PARISHAD APPRENTICE WELFARE ASSOCIATION v. STATE 
1203 
was applicable only to the petitioners in the case before this Court or whether 
A 
pars 13 laid down any general principle that apprentices need not take the 
examination. This question went before a Full Bench of the Allahabad High 
Court in Arvind Gautam v. State of U.P. & Ors., (Civil Misc. Writ Petition 
No. 23076 of 1998), reported in (1999) 2 U.P. CBEL 1397. The Full Bench 
held that what was mentioned in para 13 was in the specific factual back-
B 
ground of the "cases on hand" and that the apprentices are to go through the 
examin
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.