SANJAY KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This common judgment shall govern the disposal of CWP 1271 /92,2659/92 and 2664/92, all the three raising common questions of law in the background of common set of facts and the three petitions having been heard analogously.

(2.) On 9th January, 1990, the petitioners were appointed as Apprentices for the term of two years by the respondents. Vide order dated 6.1.92 the apprenticeship training period of the petitioners was extended upto 30.1.1992. The performance of the petitioners as apprentices was satisfactory. From 1.10.1991, certain posts of Junior Scientific Assistant in the employment of respondent No.2 had fallen vacant. The petitioners were all called for interview on 21.10.1991. One of the terms of the letter of appointment dated 9.1.1990 appointing the petitioners as apprentice scientists was: "5. You are required to sign the enclosed bond to reimburse to this Board the expenditure incurred or a sum of Rs 30,000.00 whichever is higher, in case of a default from your side as detailed in the enclosed bond form by the Board during your training in the Board."

(3.) The letter was accompanied by a proforma of surety bond, which the petitioners were required to fill in and which they did fill in. Term No.3 of the surety bond reads as under : "3. That the employee shall be bound to join the post if any offered by the employer to the employee after successful completion of the period of apprenticeships of two years."