BINDU M Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner approaches this Court to have a direction to the 1st respondent to appoint the petitioner in the post of Asst. Engineer (Civil) in preference to the candidates in the ranked list prepared by the Kerala Public Service Commission and also to quash Exts. P13 to P15. The petitioner is a Civil Engineering graduate. She claims preference in appointment to the post of Asst. Engineer (Civil) on the basis of her apprenticeship training qualification and Ext. P1 contract of apprenticeship.

(2.) The Kerala Public Service Commission invited application to the post of Asst. Engineer (Civil) in the Public Works and Irrigation Departments by Ext. P5 notification dated 27.12.1994. As per Ext. P5 notification the qualification prescribed for the post is a Degree of B.Sc. Engineering (Civil) or equivalent qualification recognised by the Kerala Government. The age limit to apply for the post was mentioned in the application. The claim of the petitioner is that as she satisfies all the educational qualifications to the post of Asst. Engineer (Civil) she is eligible to be appointed as Asst. Engineer (Civil) in preference to the candidates whose names appeared in the select list. According to the petitioner, since she has undergone apprenticeship training under the provisions of the Apprentices Act, 1961 (Act 52 of 1961) and also the Apprenticeship Rules, 1991, she should have been appointed to the post. Under the Special Rules of Kerala Engineering Subordinate Service Rules a ratio of 6:3:1 has been fixed for appointment to the post between Engineering Graduates, Diploma holders and Certificate holders. The petitioner claims that as per Ext. P1 contract of apprenticeship entered into between the petitioner and the employer namely, the Irrigation Department of the Government of Kerala and she has completed the apprenticeship training, she should get a preference in appointment. So, she sent several representations evidenced by Exts. P6 to P11 acknowledgement cards requesting to appoint her in any of the post of Asst. Engineer (Civil) as a direct recruitee. As her representations were not considered by the respondents, she filed O.P. No. 4965/2000 and by Ext. P12 judgment dated 23.12.2000 this Court has directed the respondents to consider and pass orders on the representations within a specified time. The respondent has rejected the claim of the petitioner by Exts. P13 to P15 orders and these orders are under challenge in this Original Petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the rejection of the representations evidenced by Exts. P13 to P15 are irregular and illegal. The learned counsel further submits that as per Ext. P1 contract of apprenticeship the respondents are bound to appoint the petitioner in preference to the candidates in the select list prepared pursuant to Ext. P5 notification. It is submitted that as the petitioner has undergone apprenticeship training, the respondents are bound to appoint her as Asst. Engineer (Civil) in accordance with the terms and conditions contained in Ext. P1 contract of apprenticeship. Even though Clause.5 of Ext. P1 shows that there is no obligation on the part of the employer to offer employment to the petitioner on completion of the apprenticeship, the respondents cannot estop from the legal duty to offer employment to the petitioner in the light of the decision reported in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Another v. U.P. Parivahan Nigam Shishukhs Berozgar Sangh and Others, AIR 1995 SC 1115 . The learned counsel further submits that the respondents ought to have considered the money spent by the employer in giving apprenticeship training to the petitioner and also the preferential claim of the petitioner as a person who had undergone apprenticeship training imparted by the Irrigation Division of State Irrigation Department. It is submitted that the petitioner being a registered apprentice with the employer she is not expected to file any separate application for employment pursuant to Ext. P5 notification. Hence, Exts. P13 to P15 are not valid and the rejection of the claim of the petitioner is irregular and illegal.