AF^ (^ w y fflGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARHAT BILASPUR PETITIONERS WRITPETITIONNo. 18 of2004 1. Harish Kumar Jha, s/o Shri S.M.Jha, Aged about 32 years^ R/o Bandhwapara, Near Hanuman Mandir, Purani Basti, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Uttam Singh Rajput s/o Shri Ramji Singh Rajput, Aged about 28 years, R/o village & Post Deori, Dhamdha, Distt. Durg (C.G.) 3. Mohd. Azhar Qureshi S/o Shri Mohd. Akhtar Qureshi, Aged about 28 years, Behind Masjid, Kelabadi, Durg (C.G.) 4. Bharat Kumar Rane S/o Shri D.R.Rane, Aged about 24 years, -R/o Qr. No. 104, Dr. Rajendra Nagar, Janta Colony, Ravigram, Raipur (C.G.) 5. Shiv Kumar Sahu S/o Shri Jhumuklal Sahu, Aged about 27 years c/o Dr. K.L.Deshmukh, Ganesh Chowk, Panderdalli, Dalli Rajhara, Distt. Durg (C.G.) 6. Shiv Dayal Sahu, s/o Shri Kholu Ram Sahu, Aged about 29 years, vill & Post: Pairee, Tahsil Gunderdehi, Distt. Durg (C.G.) 7. Santosh Kumar Kashyap S/o Shri Ramoo Singh Aged about 30 years, R/o vill. & Post Birgudi, Tehsil: Nagri, Distt. Dhamtari., Chhattisgarh. 8. Punit Ram Pal S/o Firtu Ram Pal, aged about 38 years, R/o Qr. No. 253, Teachers Colony, Danganiya^ Raipur, (C.G.) 9. Sewak Ram Sahu s/o Shri Latkhor Ram Sahu, Aged about 33 years, Vill & Post Sonai Dongri, Tehsil: Gumr, Distt. Durg, (C.G.) lO.Viresh Kumar Gajendra, S/o Shri Hiralal Gajendra, Aged about 31 years, Vill: Dupchera^ Post Darra, Tehsil: Gumr, Distt. Durg (C.G.) ll.Aasutosh Panchangam, S/o Shri S.R.Panchangam, Aged about 30 years, village & Post Gurur, Distt. Durg (C.G.) 12.Pankaj Sharma s/o ShriRam Kumar Sharma, Aged 29 years, R/o Santoshi Chowk, Kushalpur, Near Ghanshyam Tailor, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 13.Hemant Kumar Parganiha, S/o Shri Jagdish Parganiha, Aged about 31 years, Village Childiali P.0. Sondra via Birgaon, Raipur (C.G.) 14.Surjugi Verma s/o Shri Khorbahara Verma, Aged about 30 years, R/o vill: Childiali, P.0. Sondra via Birgaon, Raipur (C.G.) 15. Santosh kumar Kanoje, S/o Shri Johan Lal Kanoje^ Aged about 29 years, R/o Kayasthpara^ Purani Basti, Raipur (C.G.) 16.Adhar Gahrcwal S/o Shri Thuthuniya Gahrewal, Aged about 35 years, R/o village & Post Dhurkot, r3—"- Distt. Janjgir Champa (C.G.) 17.8hiv Ram Dewangan, S/o Shri Kanwalram Dewangan, Aged about 32 years, Village & Post Padmawatipur, Tehsil: Chhuikhadan, Distt. Rajnandgaon (C.G.) IS.Raja Ram S/o Shri Narayan Prasad Sahu Aged years C/o Shri Chimnuram Sahu^ New Bus Stand Back, Kabir Kutir, Gali No. 2, Ward No. 10, Khursipara, Bemetara, Tehsil : Bemetara, Distt. Durg (C.G.) 19.Sanjeev Gavel S/o Shri SAdhu Ram Gavel, Aged about 32 years, R/o qr. No. 23/231 Shakti Nagar, Post Shankar Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) 20.Rajeev Gavel S/o Shri Sadhu Ram Gavel, Aged 34 years, R/o Qr. No. 23/231, Shakti Nagar, Post Shankar Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) 21.Manoj Kumar Sharma, S/o Shri Ram Khilawan, Aged about 32 years, R/o vill. Tendubhata, P.0. Saja, Distt. Durg (C.G.) 491993. 22.Mahendra Kumar Gavel s/o Shri Chhedilal Gavel, Aged about 32 years, R/o P.0. Sakti, Ward No. 13, Champa Road, Distt. Janjgir Champa (C.G.) 494689. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : 1. Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board, Danganiya, Raipur, Through : Its Secretary^ Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Additional Secretary, Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board, Danganiya, Raipur (C.G.) WRJT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB:JIon'bIe Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Shri Shashank Thakur., Advocate for the petitioners. Shri Abhishek Sinha, Advocate for the respondents. ORAL ORDER 1. (Passed on 26l" day of Febmary, 2009) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have undergone apprentice training with the respondent Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board/Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board (for short 'CSEB/MPEB'). After completion of apprenticeship, the petitioners have not been given any employment and they remained unemployed. The petitioners have made applications to the respondents but the same have been rejected without granting preferential treatment as observed in the matter of U.P.Road Transport and others v. [( a U.P.Parivahan Nigam Shikshu Berozgar Sangh and others {AIR (1995) SC 1115}. Shri Thakur further submits that the petitioners have accmed right afiter having undergone apprenticeship with the CSEB/MPEB. Therefore, the petitioners seek a direction to the respondent authorities to issue letter of appointment to them as Line Attendant Grade II. Per contra, Shri Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that preference was given to the petitioners as mandated in U.P.Road Transport and others (supra\ Shri Sinha further submits that the impugned letters dated 6.10.2003 (Annexure P/l colly.) addressed to the petitioners clearly indicate that their performance in I.T.I. examination was much less and the other candidates were much superior and have obtained more percentage of marks and are better placed in the merit list. The mandate of the Supreme Court is that if all other eligibility needs are found equal^ then preference may be given to the trained apprentices. In the present case, nothing was equal. There is no question of granting any preference as other candidates have much better qualifications then the apprentice trainees. I have heard leamed counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. This Cowt, vide order dated 11.09.2003 passed in W.P. No. 1139/2002, filed by the petitioners herein, disposed of the said petition with a direction to the respondents to consider the representations ofthe petitioners in accordance with law. Pursuant to the said order^ the petitioners made representations which were rejected vide letters dated 6.10.2003 (Annexure P/l colly.). From the pemsal ofthe records, it is clear that the representation ofthe petitioners have been considered in accordance with law and only afiter it was found that the petitioners were much inferior to the other candidates, their representations were rejected. The selection process was in accordance with law and the petitioners had obtained less percent of marks in the ITI examination i.e. even below the cut off marks in their respective categories. In U.P.Road Transport and others {supra\ it is clearly observed that other things being equal, a trainee apprentice should be given preference over direct recruits. In the instant case, there was nothing as such equal, moreover, the petitioners were placed lower than the other candidates in the merit list. Therefore, no question of giving preference to the petitioners arises. 6. Subsequently, in the matter of Chairman, Central Coalfields Ltd. & Others. v. Jivendra Prasad Tiwari and others, in Civil Appeal No.1714 of 2007 decided on 29.03.2007, the Supreme Court observed "when apprentice undergoes a training, there is no obligation for the Management to give him employment/absorption in the establishment. •However, in case the vacancies are advertised for regular appointment and everything being equal, then a preference may be given to the candidates who have been trained by the establishment because they have undergone a training in the establishment and have legitimate expectation." 7. It is well settled principles of law that apprentice cannot claim any right to get employment on successful completion of his apprenticeship training, in absence of any condition in that regard in the contract entered into between the employer and the apprentice at the time of commencement of his traming. (See Chairman/MD, Mahanadi Coalflelds Ltd. and others v. Sadashib Behera and others\ 8. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove and applying the well settled principles oflaw to the facts ofthe case^ there is no merit in the case. 9. Accordingly, the petition deserves to be and is dismissed. No order asto costs. 10. Consequently, M(W)P No. 16/2004, also stands dismissed. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge Amit ' (2005) 2 SCC 396