IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 21ST JANUARY 2010 / 1ST MAGHA 1931 WA.No. 72 of 2010 -------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN W.P.(C).NO.20787/2009 DATED 12/10/2009 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: -------------------------------------- LIBIN JOSEPH, S/O. P.C.JOSEPH, PULICKAMTHADATHIL HOUSE, N.R.CITY.P.O., N.R.CITY, RAJAKKADU, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN-685 566. BY ADVS. MR.K.J.JOSEMON, MR.JOSE THOMAS (PEEDIKAYIL). RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ----------------------------------------------- 1. TRANSFORMERS AND ELECTRICALS KERALA LIMITED (A GOVERNMENT OF KERALA UNDERTAKING) ANGAMALY SOUTH, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683 573, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, TRANSFORMERS AND ELECTICALS KERALA LIMITED, ANGAMALY SOUTH, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683 573. 3. N.M.SHAMEER, OPERATOR GRADE III TRAINEE- MACHINIST, TRANSFORMERS AND ELECTRICALS KERALA LIMTED, ANGAMALY SOUTH, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683 573. 4. O.S.ANOOP, OPERATOR GRADE III TRAINEE- MACHINIST, TRANSFORMERS AND ELECTRICALS KERALA LIMITED, ANGAMALY SOUTH, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683 573. W.A. NO. 72/2010: 5. S.R.SUBHASH, OPERATOR GRADE III TRAINEE-MACHINIST, TRANSFORMERS AND ELECTRICALS KERALA LIMITED, ANGAMALY SOUTH, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT PIN-683 573. 6. A.NOUSHAD, OPERATOR GRADE III TRAINEE-MACHINIST, TRANSFORMERS AND ELECTRICALS KERALA LIMITED, ANGAMALY SOUTH, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683 573. R1 & R2 BY MR.M.PATHROSE MATTHAI, SENIOR ADVOCATE, ADVS. MR.SAJI VARGHESE, SMT.MARIAM MATHAI, MR.P.THOMAS GEEVERGHESE. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/01/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ. ------------------------------ W.A. No.72 OF 2010 ------------------------------ Dated this, the 21st day of January, 2010 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ Balakrishnan Nair, J. The appellant was a candidate, who applied for the post of Operator Grade-III (Mechinist). He claims, he was included as Rank No.4 in the rank list published by the 1st respondent Company. Three persons were appointed from the said list. The Writ Petition was filed by the appellant on the ground that he was an apprentice under the Apprentices Act,1961 and therefore, he is entitled to get preference. Secondly, it was contended that being such an apprentice, who successfully completed the apprenticeship period, no written test should have been conducted in his case. Thirdly, it is pointed out that, now there are vacancies, so, he being the 4th person in the select list, he should be appointed. W.A. No.72/2010 - 2 - 2. We heard the learned standing counsel for the 1st respondent. We notice that all the above three points were considered by the learned Single Judge. The learned Judge noticed that as per the decision of the Apex Court in U.P.State Road Transport Corporation and another v. U.P.Parivahan Nigam Shishukhs Berozgar Sangh and other (AIR 1995 SUPREME COURT 1115], apprentices are entitled to preference, provided, other things are equal. In this case, the appellant was inferior in merit and therefore, he cannot claim preference on the strength of that decision. The direction in the above decision, not to conduct written test for apprentices, who successfully completed the apprenticeship period, has been modified by the Apex Court in a subsequent decision rendered in Civil Appeal No. 4166/2008. The direction to waive the requirement of written test, it was held, will apply only to the candidates involved in the case of U.P.State Road Transport Corporation. In the case of other establishments, if the recruitment rules permits holding of a written test, it can be held. Noticing the above facts, the aforementioned contentions were rejected by the learned Single Judge. According to us, it was rightly done. We find no reason to take a different view. W.A. No.72/2010 - 3 - 3. The last contention was that the appellant should be accommodated in one of the existing vacancies. For the 1st respondent, there is no system of preparing a rank list, which will be alive for a period and the vacancies arising during the life of the rank list being filled up from that list. Normally, notifications are issued for specified vacancies and by filling up those vacancies, the rank list becomes non- operational. This position was noticed by the learned Single Judge and the claim of the appellant for appointment in the existing vacancy was repelled. We think it was done rightly by the learned Single Judge. In the result, the Writ Appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed. (K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE) (C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) ps