CWP No. 4878 of 1984 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 4.7.2008 Durga Das Wahi and others ......Petitioners Versus Municipal Corporation, Amritsar and others ....Respondents. Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present: None for the petitioners. Shri A.S. Jattana, Additional AG, Punjab. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? HEMANT GUPTA, J. The petitioners are the Junior Engineers working in the Municipal Corporation, Amritsar. Their services are governed by the Punjab Municipal Corporation Services (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1978 (for short `the Rules'). It is the claim of the petitioners that they are entitled to be considered for promotion to the 50% of the posts of Assistant Engineers Class-II in the service of the Corporation. But an advertisement was published in the newspaper, the Tribune, on 26.6.1983, inviting applications for the post of Apprentice Engineer. It was alleged that there is no sanctioned post of Apprentice Engineer nor any such post has been created under Section 71(5) of the Punjab Municipal Corporation Act, 1976. Therefore, the Municipal Corporation cannot recruit or appoint any Apprentice CWP No. 4878 of 1984 (2) Engineer. It is further pointed out that respondent Nos. 3 to 6 have been appointed as Apprentice Engineers, which appointments are not in accordance with the Rules. In reply, it has been submitted that respondent Nos. 3 to 6 have been selected as Apprentice Engineers and not as Assistant Engineer Class-II. The case of respondent Nos. 3 to 6 for appointment as Assistant Engineer Class-II shall be considered only after they have completed the period of temporary apprenticeship. None of them shall be entitled to promotion as Assistant Engineer Class-II, as a matter of right and their cases for promotion shall be examined after they have completed their apprenticeship. The apprentices are appointed by an establishment in terms of the provisions of the Apprentices Act, 1961 (for short `the Act'). Such Apprentices are not appointed against a post available in an establishment nor they have a preferential right of appointment in terms of Section 22 of the aforesaid Act, except in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in U.P. Road Transport Corporation v. U.P. Parivahan Nigam Shishukhs Berozgar Sangh and Ors, AIR 1995 Supreme Court 1115. The apprentices are the trainees, who are appointed in an establishment to undergo apprenticeship training by an Apprentice Advisor. Such apprentices do not hold any post under an establishment, therefore, the imparting of training to the apprentices could not be disputed by the petitioners, who are in-service candidates. It is only at the stage of appointment that the question of weigtage, if any, to the apprentices, who have undergone training from an establishment, is required to be examined in CWP No. 4878 of 1984 (3) view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to above. In view of the said fact, I do not find that any case is made out to restrain the Municipal Corporation from engaging the apprentices in terms of the provisions of the Act. Hence, the present writ petition is dismissed. 04-07-2008 (HEMANT GUPTA) ds JUDGE