M P ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. VIRENDRA KUMAR SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 10th of March, 1995 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 2962 of 1990 whereby it was directed that the case of the respondent-petitioner be considered for appointment as per law laid down in the case of Shivsingh vs. State of M. P. , 1988 (1) MPWN 24.

(2.) THE respondent-petitioner had prayed for a direction to the present appellants to give him appointment on the post of Trainee Apprentice Grade ii. The petitioner-respondent was an unemployed boy. He had applied for the post of Trainee Apprentice Grade II. He was called for interview by letter dated 10-12-1986, copy of which is Annexure P/1 on the record of the writ petition. Interview was held on 24-12-1986 and a select list was prepared for appointment as and when required by the Superintending Engineer, Morena and the Committee. That list was approved by the Chief Engineer, Bhopal on 25-12-1986. The respondent-petitioner was at Sr. No. 33 in that list. 22 candidates from that list have already been appointed. Several vacancies were lying in T. A. Gr. II but appointment order was not issued from the list. The petitioners had made representations several times. He was asked to do apprenticeship w. e. f. 21-6-1987 with an assurance that he will get appointment from the list itself in T. A. Gr. II. On the assurance, the petitioner joined and continued his apprenticeship on 21-6-1989. He had also completed two years of apprenticeship. He was relieved from the post by letter Annexure P/2 on the record of the writ petition. The posts in T. A. Gr. II were available but the petitioner was not appointed on the ground that the panel had exhausted after one year. The appointment of the petitioner-respondent was arbitrarily denied on the pretext that the list had exhausted. He had given a notice annexure P/3 on the record of the writ petition and since no reply was given, thereafter, the petition was filed.

(3.) THE present appellants who are respondents in the writ petition had taken a plea that since the list had exhausted after one year, therefore, no appointment could be given to the petitioner.