LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No.663 OF 2006 ------- Against the judgments and orders dated 02.08.2006 and 17.05.2005 passed by this Court in CWJC Nos. 6937 of 2006 and 1179 of 2005 ------- Ajit Anand son of Sri Vidya Prasad resident of village Khan Kitta P.S. Sabour Dist. Bhagalpur Petitioner-Appellant Versus 1. State of Bihar 2. The Secretary , Road Construction Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 3. The Secretary, Public Health Engineering Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 4. The Commissioner cum Secretary, Water Resources Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 5. The Commissioner cum Secretary, Personal and Administrative Reforms Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 6. The Chairman, Bihar Staff Election Commission, Post Veterinary College, Patna 7. The Secretary, Bihar Staff Election Commission, post Veterinary College, Patna 8. Binpin Kumar Singh son of Harichand Prasad Singh resident of village Mathura PS Bidupur Dist. Vaishali. Respondents- Respondents With LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No.767 OF 2005 ------- Arun Kumar son of Sri Parash Nath resident of Gandhi Chowk, West of S.B.I Mahendru PO Mahendru Dist. Patna Petitioner-Appellant Versus 1. State of Bihar 2. The Secretary , Road Construction Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 3. The Secretary, Public Health Engineering Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 4. The Commissioner cum Secretary, Water Resources Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 5. The Commissioner cum Secretary, Personal and Administrative Reforms Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 6. Binpin Kumar Singh son of Harichand Prasad Singh resident of village Mathura PS Bidupur Dist. Vaishali. 7. Md Ekbal Ahmad son of Md Suleman village Sikrahata Khund P.S Sikrahta Dist. Bhojpur Respondents- Respondents -------- For the Appellants: Mr Durga Nand Jha, Advocate Mr Dhirendrda Natha Jha, Advocate Mr Abhay Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr Ram Balak Mahto AAG VIII Mr Dilip Kumar Roy AC to AAG 8 Mr Himanshu Kumar Akela, AC to GA 5 - 2 - -------- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ---------- Heard the parties. 2. Both these letters patent appeals are inter related on account of common issue as to what law has been laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court to be followed in future in relation to recruitment of apprenticeship trainees under a State Government, vide its judgment in case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and another vs. U.P. Parivahan Nigam Shishukhs Berozgar Sangh and others (1995) 2 Supreme Court Cases 1. 3. It is not in dispute that earlier also the appellants had moved this court challenging inaction on the part of the State in not following the law laid down by the Apex Court. In that case, directions were issued to the State Government to consider the cases of Holder of diploma in Engineering in the light of law laid down by the Supreme court and if necessary to frame rules or issue guidelines. 4. Prior to framing of the rules an advertisement issued for recruitment for the posts of Junior Engineer (Civil) on a fixed amount of Rs 8,000/- per month for a duration of six months only which was challenged by the appellants on the ground that such recruitment was being made without framing the rules only with a view to over-reach the judgment of the Supreme Court and direction of this court to first frame rules or issue guidelines. During the pendency of the aforesaid challenge in CWJC N0.1179 of 2004, the State Government framed the required rules and brought it to the notice of this court.The same - 3 - was considered while finally disposing of CWJC No.1179 of 2004 by order dated 17.05.2005 which is subject matter of appeal in LPA No. 767 of 2005. By that order a learned Single Judge declined to interfere with the procedure of appointment being made for a short period on contract basis but issued directions that the rule framed should be followed in its totality if regular appointments are required to be made in future. LPA No. 767 of 2005 has been preferred by only one of the three writ petitioners of CWJC No. 1179 of 2004, the remaining two petitioners accepted that judgment and order and waited for publication of fresh advertisement bearing no. 1006 issued in the year 2006. In that advertisement the terms and conditions were incorporated on the basis of rules framed by the State. That was challenged by the appellant of LPA No. 663 of 2006 by preferring CWJC No. 6937 of 2006. His prayer was to amend/ delete the condition of examination in advertisement no. 1006 published on 26.05.2006. According to the writ petitioner, the State Government could not have required apprenticeship trainees to undergo written examination in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation (supra). 5. Learned writ court in CWJC No. 6937 of 2006 has considered the said common grievance of the appellants by examining the observations and directions of the Apex Court in paragraphs 12 and 13 of the aforesaid judgment. For the sake of convenience paragraphs 12 and 13 are extracted hereinbelow: - “12. In the background of what has been noted above, we state that the following would be kept in mind while dealing with the claim of trainees to get employment after successful completion of their training: - 4 - (1) Other things being equal, a trained apprentice should be given preference over direct recruits. (2) For this, a trainee would not be required to get his name sponsored by any employment exchange. The decision of this Court in Union of India v. N. Hargopal would permit this. (3) If age bar would come in the way of the trainee, the same would be relaxed in accordance with what is stated in this regard, if any, in the service rule concerned. If the service rule be silent on this aspect, relaxation to the extent of the period for which the apprentice had undergone training would be given. (4) The training institute concerned would maintain a list of the persons trained yearwise. The persons trained earlier would be treated as senior to the persons trained later. In between the trained apprentices, preference shall be given to those who are senior”. “13. Insofar as the cases at hand are concerned, we find that the Corporation filed an additional affidavit in CA Nos. 4347-4354 of 1990(as desired by the Court) on 20.10.1992 giving position regarding vacancies in the posts of conductors and clerks. If such posts be still vacant, we direct the Corporation to act in accordance with what has been stated above regarding the entitlement of the trainees. We make it clear that while considering the cases of the trainees for giving employment in suitable posts, what has been laid down in the Service Regulations of the Corporation shall be followed, except that the trainees would not be required to appear in any written examination, if any provided by the Regulations. It is apparent that before considering the cases of the trainees, the requirement of their names being sponsored by the employment exchange would not be insisted upon. Insofar as the age requirement is concerned, the same shall be relaxed as indicated above.” 6. The learned writ court accepted the submissions advanced by learned Advocate General that by framing and adding a new rule 2-A to the relevant rules in the Public Works Department Code Part II Appendix, through notification dated 29.11.2003, all the four conditions laid down in paragraph 12 of the aforesaid judgment had been incorporated in the amended rules. The learned writ court further accepted the submissions that the directions contained in - 5 - paragraph 13 of the judgment were not general directions which could be treated as law laid down under Article 141 of the Constitution of India but were specifically and exclusively meant only for decision in that case. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants has reiterated his submissions before us also that the law declared by the Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment includes the directions in paragraph 12 as well as paragraph 13 of the judgment. 8. On giving anxious and deep consideration to the contents of those paragraphs, we are in agreement with the view expressed by the writ court that the general directions required to be followed in other cases are contained in paragraph 12 of the judgment and those have already been incorporated by the State by amendment of the rules through notification no. 10214 dated 29.11.2003. 9. It may be relevant to point out that the appellants have not challenged amendment in the rules on any ground whatsoever. So far as their case that rules are not in accordance with the spirit of Supreme Court judgment is concerned, we have already indicated above that only paragraph 12 of the judgment of the Apex Court contains general directions which were required to be incorporated in the rules. 10. We have been informed by learned counsel for the State that the recruitment process initiated through the advertisement in question issued in the year 2006 has already been completed and large number of persons selected have joined the service and are working since long. He further informed us that in the year 2007 another - 6 - advertisement of similar nature was issued for further recruitment to the post in question and against that advertisement also selection process as well as appointments were completed. He clarified that some dispute, relating to recruitment initiated in the year 2007, is pending in the Apex Court. 11. Having considered the entire matter, we have no good reason to differ with the views of the writ court. We find no merit in these appeals which are accordingly dismissed. No cost. (Shiva Kirti Singh, J) (Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J) The Patna High Court The 24th August, 2010 shahid/ NAFR