MOHD WASEEM Vs. U P STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner was appointed as apprentice draftsman under the provisions of Indian Apprenticeship Act in the service of U.P. Electricity Board on August 22, 1988 for a period of one year. After expiry of one year, the petitioner was not given any fresh appointment as such. However, on January 1, 1990 petitioner was appointed as tracer which is lower post to that of draftsman and he continued to work as such till March 31, 1990. After March 31, 1990, petitioner was not issued any fresh appointment, with the result petitioner continued to make representations but as no action whatsoever was taken on those representations, compelled the petitioner to file this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The prayer in the petition is that the respondent may be directed to appoint the petitioner to the post of draftsman/tracer with all consequential benefits. Counter affidavit has been filed wherein factual position as mentioned above, has not been disputed. It is admitted that the petitioner was appointed as apprentice in the respondents' board.

(2.) Sri A. Mannan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner argued that in view of the decision in the case U.P.S.R.T.C. and Ors. v. V. P. Parivahan Nigam Shishuks Berozgar Sangh and Ors. (1995-II-LLJ-854) petitioned is entitled to be appointed as draftsman/tracer in the respondents' board. It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents that the decision of Supreme Court in the case of U.P.S.R.T.C. (supra), is fully applicable in this case. Following that decision, I direct the respondents - board to consider the case of the petitioner provided there are vacant posts for appointment keeping in view of the following conditions: 1. Other things being equal, a trained apprentice should be given preference over direct recruits. 2. For this, a trainee would not be required to get his name sponsored by any employment exchange. The decision of this Court in Union of India v. Hargopal (1987-I-LLJ-545) would permit this.

(3.) 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 had undergone training could be given.