K PITCHANDI Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMILNADU REP BY ITS SECRETARY COOPERATION FOOD AND CONSUMER PROTECTION DEPT; REGISTRAR OF COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES AND THE SPECIAL OFFICER CHENNAI CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has come forward to file the present Writ Petition seeking for a direction to the respondents to consider his representation dated 22.11.2007 in the light of the order passed by this Court in W.P. No. 12913 of 1998 dated 22.3.1999 and the letter of the Government dated 4.9.2006 as well as G.O.Ms. No. 249, Cooperation Department dated 31.10.2006.

(2.) It is seen from the records that the petitioner earlier filed a Writ Petition being W.P. No. 12913 of 1998 before this Court seeking for a direction to the 2nd respondent bank to give priority to the qualified candidates who are having apprenticeship training certificate from the same establishment. This Court by an order dated 22.3.2009 allowed the Writ Petition. This Court based such claim upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in U.P.S.R.T.C. v. U.P. Parivahan Niham Shiskukhs Berozgar Sangh, 1995 2 SCC 1. as well as the order of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 5285 to 5328 of 1996 dated 3.10.1996 in the case of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board v. P. Arul and Ors.

(3.) It is pursuant to these two orders of the Supreme Court, the State Government has issued G.O.Ms. No. 142, Labour and Employment Department dated 10.11.1998. This Court held that the respondent bank must scrupulously follow the guidelines and any deviation from the judgment of the Supreme Court and the guidelines will be void and the Writ Petition was disposed of. In fact in the guideline issued by the State Government in G.O.Ms. No. 142 , it is stated that when other things being equal, trained apprentice will be given preference over direct recruits and the trained apprentice need not necessarily get his name sponsored through employment exchange. With reference to maximum age, he will be given relaxation.