1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR JUDGMENT (1) PRAKASH CHOUDHARY VS. THE JODHPUR VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LIMITED ,JODHPUR & ORS. (D.B.CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL(W) NO.1007/08) (2) SHAKTI SINGH & ORS. VS. THE JODHPUR VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LIMITED ,JODHPUR & ORS. (D.B.CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL(W) NO.804/08) (3) SHAKTI SINGH & ORS. VS. THE AJMER VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LIMITED ,AJMER & ORS. (D.B.CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL(W) NO.807/08) (4) RAJENDRA PARIHAR VS. THE AJMER VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LIMITED ,AJMER & ORS. (D.B.CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL(W) NO.1091/08) (5) SURESH KUMAR MARU & ORS. VS. RAJASTHAN RAJYA VIDHYUT PRASARAN LTD & ORS. (D.B.CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL(W) NO.190/09) Date of Judgment :- 9.2.2009. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.KAPADIA HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA Mr. S.P.Sharma ) Mr. Rakesh Arora ) for the appellants. Mr.Ravi Bhansali, for the respondents. 2 1. These special appeals arise out of a common order dated 7.7.08 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the writ petitions preferred by the respective appellant claiming preferential right of consideration for appointment to the post of Technical Helper on the strength of the training acquired by them as apprentice trainee, stand dismissed. 2. Relying upon the circulars issued by the Government of India and the Government of Rajasthan so also the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of U.P.State Road Transport Corporation( in short “U.P.S.R.T.C.”) & Anr. vs. U.P.Parivahan Nigam Shishukhs Berozgar Sangh & Ors. (1995) 2 SCC, 1, it was contended on behalf of the appellants before the learned Single Judge that the respondent companies are under an obligation to offer appointments to them against the vacancies advertised inasmuch as in view of the training received as apprentice trainees, they have preferential right of appointment. 3. The learned Single Judge found that there was no condition in the contract of apprenticeship to the effect that appointment shall be given to the appellants after successful completion of their apprenticeship training therefore, they cannot claim appointment as a matter of right. The learned Single Judge observed that the circulars issued by the Government of Rajasthan and the Government of India only provides that while 3 making direct recruitment against the existing vacancies, the persons who have acquired the training as apprentices shall be given preference vis a vis other persons on all other things being equal. After due consideration of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in U.P.S.R.T.C.'s case (supra), the learned Single Judge opined that even on the basis of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said matter, the appellants cannot claim appointment as a matter of right. The learned Single Judge observed that in the said decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also directed only for preferential treatment to a trained apprentice . Accordingly, the writ petitions preferred by the appellants have been dismissed. 4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that while passing the order impugned dismissing the writ petitions, the learned Single Judge has not correctly appreciated the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in U.P.S.R.T.C's case (supra) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the guide lines for giving preferential treatment to the apprentices who have acquired apprenticeship training. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the circulars issued by the Government of Rajasthan and Government of India have also not been given due weightage by the learned Single Judge which has resulted in an erroneous finding being arrived at. The learned counsel submitted that while filling the vacancies by way of 4 direct recruitment no preferential treatment has been extended by the respondent companies to the apprentice trainees and thus they have violated the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent urged that in view of the provisions of Section 22 of the Apprentice Act, 1961 ( in short “the Act of1961” hereinafter) in absence of any condition in the contract providing for the offer of appointment to the apprentice trainees, the appellants cannot claim offer of appointment as a matter of right. The learned counsel submitted that adhering to the circulars issued by the Government of Rajasthan on other things being equal , the apprentice trainees are being given preference. Accordingly, it is submitted by the learned counsel that the appellants have not been able to make out any case in their favour therefore, the writ petitions have rightly been dismissed by the learned Single Judge. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in U.P.State Electricity Board vs. Shiv Mohan Singh & Anr, (2004) 8 SCC, 402. 6. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 7. Section 22 of the Act of 1961 provides in unequivocal terms that it shall not be obligatory on the part of the employer 5 to offer any employment to any apprentice who has completed the period of apprenticeship training in his establishment unless there is a condition in the contract to the contrary. It is not the case of the appellants that the contract of apprenticeship training entered into between the appellants and the respondent companies contains any such condition that on successful completion of the training they will be offered employment. In this view of the matter, the finding arrived at by the learned Single Judge that the appellants cannot claim the offer of appointment as a matter of right cannot be faulted with. 8. In the matter of U.P.State Electricity Board vs. Shiv Mohan Singh & Anr.(2004(8) SCC 402), the Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering the various provisions of the Apprentices Act, 1961 has held as under:- "42. As per the scheme of the Act it appears that the contract of apprenticeship is entered into between employer and apprentice, and the apprentice has to undergo a training for fixed duration and he will get stipend for that. After successfully undergoing training he appears for test for certificate as required under Section 21. During the traning period he will be treated as an apprentice and he shall not be deemed as a workman as per Section 18 of the Act read with the definition of "workman" under Section 2(r). It is ordained in clause (b) of Section 18 that provisions of any law tih respect to labour shall not apply to or in relation to such apprentices. Therefore,on a reading of all the provisions together, what transpires is that an apprentice will be treated as apprentice and he will not acquire the status of workman in that establishment. After the successful completion of training he will undergo a test and on being successful in the test a certificate to that effect will 6 be issued to him as per Section 21. It is open for the employer to offer him employment but it will not be obligatory on the part of the apprentice to serve that employer as per Section 22 except when there is specific condition of contract to that effect. During the course when he undergoes the apprenticeship training he is only entitled to get stipend under Rule 11 at such rates as are prescribed in the Rules."(emphasis added) 9. The similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in U.P.S.R.T.C.'s case supra. However, in the said matter , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down that while dealing with the claim of the trainees to get employment after successful completion of their training following should be kept in mind:- "(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, i 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." 10. The respondents have taken a categorical stand that they are adhering to the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as aforesaid. There is nothing on record to show that other 7 things being equal the preferential treatment is not being given by the respondents to the apprentice trainees vis a vis other candidates seeking appointment by way of direct recruitment. In this view of the matter, in our considered opinion, the order passed by the learned Single Judge does not suffer from any error warranting interference by us in these intra court appeals. 11. In the result, the appeals fail, the same are hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. (SANGEET LODHA),J. (A.M.KAPADIA),J. ADITYA/-