HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WritPetitionNo.1967 of2005 /^T~) (^ Petitioiiers 'ResDosideiits 1. Susheel Kumar Nimialkar, aged about 31 years, S/o Shi-i R.P. Nii-nialkar, Caste Dhobi, R/o Quarter No. 5/A, Sector 5, Balco Nagar, Tehsil " '" ahd District Korba, ClAattisgarh. 2. Narendra Singli Kshatri, aged about 30 years, Caste Kshatri S/o late Shri Jeevan Singh Kshatri, R^ Village jOochbhatti, Post Office Salere, Tehsil and District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 3. ^iil Kumar Mislira, aged about 30 years, S/o 81m Manliaraii Lal Mishra, Caste Brahman, R/o village Post Pamgarh, Tehsit Pamgarii, District Janjgir Champa, Chliattisgarh. 4. Yadvendra Singh, S/o Slm M.R. Kishore, aged about 31 yeai's, casteSanwara, R/o post Hudco, LIG 80, Korba, Rajendra Prasad Nagar, Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh. I VEI^US - I • - 1. Bharat Aluminum Compaiiy Limited, through its President BALCO, Korba, District Korba, Chliattisgarh. 2. Umon of India, Thi'ougb the Secretaiy, GoveiTinient of India, Ministry of Labour and Rehabilitation, Shi-aiii Shakti Bhawan, New Delhi. 3. State of Chhattisgarh through fhe Secretary, Goveiiiinent of Chhattisgarh, Department of Employment and Trammg^ DK8 Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur. 4. The Collector, District Korba^Chhattisgarh. 5. The Superintendent of Police, District Korba, Chhatfisgarh. ^3) (WRTT PETITION UNDER ARTtCLE 226/22^ QF THE CQNSTTTUTION OF INDIA) (SB: Hon'ble JVIr. Satisii K. Agmliotri, J.) Present : Shri R.S. Marbas, Advocate fbrthe petitioners. Shri Abhishek Sinha, Advocatejfbrthe Respondent/Balco. QRALOjRDER (Passed 02126th day ofMareh, 2009) With the consent ofthe parties, the matter is^taken up for hearing finally. 1. Leamed counsel appeaiing for the petitioners submits that fhe petitioners have undergpne apprentice trainmg with the respondent Bharat Aluminum Company Limited (fbr short 'Balco'). After completion of apprenticeship, the petitioners have not been giveii asiy eniployment and they remained unemployed. The petitioners have made applications to the respondesits but the same have been rejected without granting preferehtial treatment as obsen/'ed in the mattei' of U.P^Road Transport and 'ofhers v. U.P.Parivahan Nigam Shikshu Berozgar Sangh and others {AIR (1995) SC]JI5}. 2. Sliri Marhas fiirther submits tliat the petitiosiers have acquired right to appointment after having undergone apprenticeship with the Balco. Therefore, the petitionersseek,a du-ection to the respondent authorities to recmit the trained apprentices on the vacant posts to fhe extent of 50% for working on technicad posts and tlie teclmical work may not be taken from the B.Sc trainees who are not trained in the trade. 3. Per contra,Shri Sinha, leamed comisel appearing for the respondent company submits that the petitioners' qualification is much inlerior to the B.Sc. degi'ee holder candidates. The minimum entry level qualification, considering the nature aiid fhe high level of technical and engineering kiiowledge has been upgi'aded to B.Sc. as per the policy decision ofthe respondent company; therefore, the petitioners caimot seek to compel the respondent company to lay down the eligibility condition as per their dictate. Since there are no posts for which entty level requirement is ITI/Diploma. The petitioners possess ITI/Diploma. Thus, the petitioners do not have any right to seek directions of preferential treatment or reseivation ofposts. •^ 5. 7. @ I have heard leamed coynsel appearmg for the parties, perused the pleadmg and documents appended thereto. It is evident that when apprentice undergoes training, there is no obligation for aiiy maiiagement to give employment. Further, the respondent management has already taken a policy decision by wltich technical and engineering kiiowledge has been upgraded to B.Sc. degi-ee and the same cannot be challenged. In the matter of Chairman, Central Coalfields Ltd. & Otliers Vs. Jivendra Prasad Tiwari and others, in Civil Appeal No. 1714 of 2007 decided on 29.03.2007, the Supreme Court observed ?\^ien apprentice undergoes a trainmg, there is no obligation fbr the Majaagement to give him employment/absoiption in the cstablislimesit.......However, in case the vacancies are advertised for regular appointment and everything being equal, then a preterence may be given to flie candidates who have been trained by the establishment because they have undergone a traimng in the establisliiiient and have legitimate expectation.'* It is well settled principles oflaw that apprentice camiot claim any right to get employment ori successftil completion ofhis apprenticesliip trainmg, in absence of any condition in that regard m fhe contract entered into between the employer and the apprentice at the time ofcommencement of liis training. (See Chairman/MD, Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd and athers v. Sadashib Behera and others ). Iii the present case, the petitioners are not having sufficient qualitlcatipn in comparision to other B.Sc. trainees. In view ofthe foregomg, and applying the well setfled prmciples oflaw to the facts ofthe case, there is no merit intliis case. Accordingly, the petitioii deserves to be and is dismissed. No order asto costs. Consequently, M(W)P No. 1555/2005, also stands dismissed. Sahu Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge 1 (2005) 2 SCC 396