.^'^ ^ ^ IN THE HIGH COURT QF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ^y WRIT PETITION(S) N0. ^31-/ 2009 PETITIONER:- ^ 0^/¥/ / IJf / ^v/^w '/^Y /-^^y ^e ^f ^- y ^ ^ ^-jr' ^^ .i Vinod Kumar Singh, S/o Shri Shambhoo Singh, Aged about 37 years, R/o Village 85 P.0. Sathni, Via-Laxamnpur, P.S. Sagra, Tah. Sirmore, Distt. Rewa (M.P.), Ex-ITI Apprentice (Diesel Mechanical), SECL, Churcha West Colliery, District Korea, (C.G.) Rakesh Prasad Mishra, S/o Shri ShambhuNath Mishra, Aged about 36 years, R/o Village Dole, Post Mau Via-Sirmore, District Rewa, Ex- ITI Apprentice (Motor Mechanic), SECL, Churcha West Colliery Area, District Korea (C.G.) Jitendra Smgh, S/o Shri BanshPati Singh, Aged about 38 years, R/o Village Barauli- Thakuran, P.0. Jawa, Tahsil Teother, District Rewa, Ex-ITI Apprentice (Electrical Fitter), SECL, Churcha West Collieiy Area, District Korea (C.G.) Anil Kumar Tiwari, S/o Shri Balmik Prasad Tiwari, Aged about 37 years, R/o Village Mahat, P.0. & P.S. Baikunthpur, District Rewa (M.P.), Ex-ITI Apprentice (Electrical Fitter), SECL, Hasdeo Area, District Korea (C.G.) Jagat Narayan Dubey, S/o Shri Laxman Prasad Dubey, Aged about 35 years, R/o Village Atraila, Post Devra, P.S. Mangawa, District Rewa (M.P.), Ex-ITI Apprentice (Fitter), SECL, Bhatgaon Area, District Korea (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS:- ^^' 2. ^' Coal India Limited, 10, Netaji Subhash Road, Kolkata (W.B.) Through Its Chairman South Eastern Coalfields Ltd., Seepat Road, Bilaspur (C.G.) Through Its Chairman-cum-Managing Director, 3. Director (Personal), South Eastern Coalfields Ltd., Seepat Road, Bilaspur (C.G.) 4. Dy. Chief Personal Manager (Labour), South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Bilaspur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN NATURE OF CERTIQRARI, MANDAMUS, PROHIBITIQN AND OTHER SUITABLE WRIT OR WRITS, DIRECTION OR DIRECTIONS, ORDER OR ORDERS: '.. HEGH COURT OF CHHATTISGH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Wrif Petltioii (S) No. 3097 of 2009 PETITIONERS Vinod Kumar Singh and others. VERSUS Coai india Ltd. and others. Smt. Smitha Ghal counsei for the petltloners. Shri P.S. Koshy counsel for the respondents. WRIT PETITSON UNDER ART5CLE 226 OF THE CONST!TUTSO!Si OF INDIA O^ROE'R (03.07.2009) The petitloners who are qualified i.T.i. trained Apprentices have caifed in question the iilegal and arbitrary action of the respondents by not includjng thelr names In the select list pubilshed In local Nevvs Paper dated 21.12.2008 and 17.12.2008 for recruitment on the post of General Mazdoor Category - i in the South Eastern CoaifieEds Limited whereas the unquaiifled or iess qualified persons than the petitioners for the said post have been induded in the said select iist. 2. After compietion of their iTi training were registered in the Employment Exchange Office and were quaiified for their appolntment on the post of GeneraJ Mazdoor Category -! by the respondent - SECL. The petitloners after successfut compfetion of their training period represented the authorities for issuance of proficiency certificate and also for their appointment on the posf of General Mazdoor Category - i. as per the provisions of Sectlon 21 of the Apprentices Act, 1961 . jn spite of a strong assurance by the SECL Management no steps have been taken by the respondents for thejr appointment on the post of Genera! Majdoor ^ategory E. c 3. In the matter of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and another vs. Parivahan Nigam. Shikshukhs Berozgar Sangh and others the guideiines have been Issued by the Apex Court regarding appointment of Genera! Mazdoor in the different subsidjary coa! companies underthe Coai !nd!a Ltd. Some ofthe simllariy situated persons filedW.P. No. 1357/2002 i^ -2- which was disposedof with a direction to the respondents to consider the cases of the petitioners for absorption and reQularization on the post of General Mazdoor immediateiy and a!so to take necessary steps for relaxation on the ban imposed on appointments on the said post. Against the sald order respondent - Coal india Ltd. preferred Civii Appeat No. 1714/2007 before the Apex Court which was disposed ofon 29.3.2007 with the observations that the management has no obiigation to give empioyment or to absorb the trained apprentices in the estabiishment, the order of fearned Slngie Judge in thls regard is totaSty wrong and is iiable to be s6t aside. Hov^ever, if vacancies are advertised for reguiar appointments and everything being equai, then preference may be given to the candidates who are trained. it is furtherobserved that ifthe incumbents have successfuliy completed the training, there Is no reason to withhoid their proficiency certificate. 4. As regards judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and another (supra), it cieariy mentions that if the age bar comes in the way of trainees, the same would be relaxed In accordance with what is stated in this regard, if any, in the service ruies concerned, and if the service ruies be sitent on this aspect, reiaxation to the extent of period for which apprentice had undergone training wouid be given. Taking into consideratiori that the petitioners' cases for recruitment couid not be considered due to age bar even after gsving them relaxation of the period for vvhich they had undergone training, the grievance of the petitioners that respondents have Initiated selection process in vloiation of the directives of the Apex Court, appears to be unfounded. 5. Aiiegation of discrimlnation agalnst the respondents is based on certain appointments made by respondents In between 2000-01 and thereafter till 2005. This Court in vide its order dated 9.4.2009 passed in W.P. (S) No. 38/2009 filed by similarty situated empioyees of the respondents has heid that the above argument on behaif of the petitioner based on the aifeged discrimjnatory appointments of other empioyees cannot be considered in view of the categorical directions of the Apex Court. 6. Consequently, after taking into consideration the guidelines provided by the Supreme Court and aiso keeping in view the fact that this Court has '•^Sl .y ^./ -3- already dismissed the petition of simiiarly situated persons, this Court is of the view that the petitioners are not entitted forany reiief claimed in this petition. The petition has no force and therefore, the same is Siab!e to be dlsmissed. it is accordingiy dismissed. 7. No orders as to costs. 'f Sd/- pritinker Diwaker judge i\ 1