DHARAM PAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner passed his matriculation examination in the year 1978 and thereafter cleared the two years course in electrician trade. After coming into force of the Apprenticeship Act, 1961, the petitioner was selected for apprenticeship as Lineman in Sept., 1987 in the Hoshiarpur Branch of the Punjab State Electricity Board. The petitioner completed two years apprenticeship on 24.9.1989. In terms of the judgment of the Honourable Apex Court in the case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and another Vs. U.P. Parivahan Nigam Sishukhs Berozgar Sangh, 1995(2) SCT 367 (SC) : AIR 1995 Supreme Court 1115 , the petitioner made various representations for giving him regular appointment as per the steps required to be taken by the Government in terms of the judgment of the Apex Court. On 17.7.1996 the petitioner submitted a representation before the respondents requesting them to implement the instructions issued by the Government dated 26.2.1996, Annexure P/4 to the petition. Without deciding the representations made by the petitioner, the respondent-Board on 15.2.1996 invited applications for 754 posts of Lineman. The selection test for the same was held on 12.10.1996. The petitioner appeared in the said test. He was declared successful, but appointment could not be given to him because he was much lower in merit. Some of the persons challenged this action of the Board in C.W.P. No. 12312 of 1996, which was dismissed as pre-mature as the Government was to act in accordance with its policy and judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court. Thereafter the petitioner kept on making various representations but of no consequences. The representations were also filed in Aug., 2002. Having failed to get any relief from the respondents despite various representations, the petitioner has filed this writ petition praying that the respondents be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment as Lineman and in any case for treating the apprentices on year-wise seniority and granting them preference in appointment.

(2.) Upon notice, the respondents filed a detailed reply. It is stated that the present writ petition is totally misconceived. The petitioners have no right for appointment to the post of Lineman. According to the respondents an advertisement was issued for recruitment to the post of Lineman but the same restricted to the candidates possessing national apprenticeship certificate in the trade of Lineman. Against the advertised posts, only 2731 applications were received and out of those only 2623 candidates were found to be eligible. The minimum eligibility marks were fixed at 30% and the last candidate appointed in the general category had got 76 marks out of 200 whereas the petitioner obtained 52 marks out of 200. Thus, the petitioner cannot claim any preference over the appointed candidates. The written test was conducted to determine the inter se merit of the Lineman for the purposes of drawing a merit list and this has already been up-held by a Division Bench of this Court.

(3.) The above referred facts clearly indicate that the apprentices appointed earlier were required to be absorbed in appointment in terms of the judgment of the Honourable Apex Court in the case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation (supra). The parties rely upon the directions issued by the Honourable Apex Court in this behalf, which read as under:-