G.SAKTHIVEL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dtd. 21/3/2024 by and in which the request for the appointment of the petitioners was rejected.

(2.) Heard Mr.A.R.Suresh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Dr.K.Kannan, learned Senior Panel Counsel appearing for the first respondent and Mr.R.Ulaganathan, learned counsel for the respondents 2 and 3.

(3.) It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that after undergoing the written examination and oral interview, the petitioners joined respondent-Port Trust as Apprentices and took training for two years between 13/10/1995 to 12/10/1998. It is the further submission of the petitioners that on successful completion of the Apprentice Training, they were all subjected to an examination conducted by the Regional Director, Apprentice Training Program, Guindy at the Port Trust Premises. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that 102 Apprentices were selected along with these petitioners. Out of them, 25 were appointed as regular employees in Welder Trade and 38 were appointed as Carpenter Trade between March/April 2001. Though these petitioners were also participated in the exam, they were not considered for appointment. It is the further submission of the petitioners that, every establishment must have a policy for appointing the Apprentices in accordance with Sec. 22(1) of the Apprentice Act, 1961, whereas, the respondent-Port Trust does not have such policy. It is the further submission of the petitioners that taking advantage of the absence of Policy, they discriminate among the employees. It is the further submission of the petitioners that transparency in appointment of apprentice, could be sustained only if the respondents comply with the statutory mandate provided under Sec. 22(1) of the Apprentice Act, 1961. Hence, prayed to allow the writ petition.