PETE IONER s .- m THE IGH CWRT OP JUDgéf®JRE AT JABALWR M.?. ' mprmd. ‘Hé‘%\‘" ” " o Shivk'uin’ar $0111 S/o Dalluprasad Soni; aged 36 yrs, R/o V111 age Baloda, Tahsil Janjgir, D Ve mus . REsyoNpmm ; "4. Chaiman mm Managing Directer Souaa Eastem Coal Field Ltd (sEaa) seepat Read, Bilasp‘u: (ma) 94‘} 2,. Chief General Manager S.E.C. L. Ko$a Ama Korea. H) 3. by. Chief Pérsonnel Manager S.E.C.L. Kowa Ama Kama Distt Bilaspur (M.P.) OF maIA. 3§rHIoN WEEK ARTELE y26/797 OP mg ceNs‘rEu‘rION m» m»v¢§.:~mv2 .’...r.‘w‘;.‘..g:£.u£..£’,‘43;.§m», L7 - n i9 istt J gljgiro Petitioxmr Versus Respondents HIGH COURT OF CHHA’ITISGARH AT BILAPUR S M r2 Shiv Kumar Soni Chairman-cum~Managing Director, South Eastern Coal Field Ltd. 5a others Sdl- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge $42006 J /’7 Writ Petition No. 1681 of 1999 \ N HIGH COUVI‘ OF CHHATPISGARH AT BILASPUR E Writ Petition No. 1681 of 1999 Petitioncr Shiv Kumar Soni ‘ Versus Respondents Chailman-cum-Managmg Dircctor, w South Eastern Coal Fiald Ltd. & othcm Singe Bench : Hon’blc Mr. Jusu‘cc Satish K. Agnihotri. Smf. Smitha Ghai, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri P. S. Nair, Senior Advocate with Shri Vinod Deshmukh, Advate for the. respondents. ORDER ( Apn'l, 2006) The following order of the Court was passed by Satish K. Agihotri, J. The petitioner, undisputedly completed his I.T.I. opplenticeship during the period from 7,2. 1986 to 7.2.1988 at South Eastem Coal Fields Ltd., Manikpur Colliery. On the basis of his apprenticeship certincate, the pen'tioner applied for appointment on the post of General Mazdoor Category-I. The admitted case of the petitioner is that the petitioner appeared in written test on 3.12.1997 and! interview held on 6. 12. 1997 and the petitioner was found in the select list at serial No. 99. Out of the said select list 42 appointed on the basis of the available vacancies. The petitioner was again interviewed on 10.9.1998 but his case was not considered for appointment on the ground ofbeing age-barred. ’ persons were oc / Transport Corporation and another Vs. (LP. Parivahan Nigam shishukhs Berozgat Séngh and others { (1995) 2 S.C.C. 1}. appoint the patitioner on the post of Gensral Mazdoor Category- 1. On the other hand, Shm' P. S. Nair, learnéd Senior counscl, assisted by Shn‘ Vinod Deshmukh, leanmd counsel appearing for thc respondents, submitted that the petitioner had produced the O.B.C. categmy certificate at the time of interview, not earlier. Eveo otherwise the case of the petitioner was considered giving all the reliefs as has been directed by the Supreme Court in the case of U. P. State Road Transport Corporation and another (supra). The petitioner has been found age-barred. It was further contended that it has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of Chairman/MD, Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. and others Vs. Sadashib Behera & others (2005) 2 S.C.C. 396 as under:~ .7J provides that notwimstanding anything in sub-smtion (1) where there is a condition in a contract of apprenticeship that an apprentice shall, after successful completion of apprenticeship training, selve the employer, the employer shall, on such completion, be bound to offer suitable employment to the apprentice, and the apprentice shall be bound to serve the employer in that capacity for such period and on such remuneration as may be specified in the contract. Thus the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder Show that in absence of any condition in the contract which is entered into between the employer and the apprentice at the time of commencement of his apprenticeship training and which is registered with the Apprenticeship Adviser to the en'ect that the apprentice shall serve the employer, an apprentice cannot claim any right to get an employment on successful completion of his training. 5. I have heard leaxned counsel for the parties and have perused the records appended to the writ petition and returns tiled by the parties. 6. The Supreme Court in the case of U. P. State Road Transport Corporation and another (supra) observed as under:— “7. The aforesaid provisions are suiiiciently indicative of the fact that the training imparted is desired to be result-oriented; and the trainees are treated akin to employees. Even so, Section 22 of the Act states, and it is this provision which has been pressed into cf service by the appellants, that it shall not be obligatory on the part 0t the employer to otter any employment to any apprenn'ce who has completed the period of his apprenticeship training in his establishment unless there be a condition in the contract to the contrary. The model contract fonn iinding place in Schedule VI of the Rules echoes the voice of Section 22 (1) in its second para. The Corporation has placed on record a model contract form entered into between it and the. trainees which also states about the aforesaid non-obligation.” a 7? It is clear from the observations of the Supreme Court, quotad above that it is not obh‘gatmy on the part of the employer to ooer any employment to any appmnu‘ce who has completed the period of his apprenticeship in absence of any condition in the conUact which is entered into between the. employer and the apprentice at the time of commencement of hisyapprenticeship tmjning. The direction of the Supreme Court in U. P. State Road Transport Corporation (supra) still holds good as it has neither been amended nor modined by any other. subsequent decision. The decision of the Supleme Court in ChairmanIMD, Mahanadi Coaliields Ltd. and others (supra) approves the obselvations made in the case of U. P. State Road Transport Corporation and another, hence, the contention of the respondents that the decision of the Supreme Conrt in the case of ChairmanlMD, Mahanadi Coaltields Ltd. and others has modined the earlier decision in the case of U. P. State Road Transport Corporation and another (supra) is not sustainable. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to comply with the directions passed by the Supreme Court in the case of U. P. State Road Transport Corporation and another (supra), in the following terms:- (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. Hargopall 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 ( 7g period for which the apprentice hm! undergone training 4) The training institute concemad would maintain a list of the persons trainad yealwise. The persons trained earliei” would be heated as senior to the between the hained apprentices, to those who an: senior.” would be given. ' persons trained later. In pmference shall be given Satish K. Agnihotri ‘WVJ”§9¢