1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA. C.W.P(T) No. 12567 of 2008 Date of Decision: 23.12.2011 Vikas Kumar son of Sh. Puran Chand, Resident of village and P.O Dhagwar, Tehsil Dharamshala, District Kangra(H.P). .. Petitioner. Vs. 1. Himachal Road Transport Corporation through its Managing Director, Shimla. 2. Divisional Manager, Himachal Road Transport Corporation, Dharamshala, District Kangra (H.P.). ..Respondents. Application under Section 9 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the Petitioner: Mr. Vikas Bharadwaj,Advocate For the Respondents: Mr.Adarsh Sharma, Advocate. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral). Facts are not much in dispute. Vide order dated 27.9.2001 (Annexure P-2) petitioner was engaged as an apprentice in the trade of Carpenter for a period of two years. letter issued by the Regional Manager HRTC, Dharamshala is clear in this regard. Petitioner successfully completed his period 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 of apprenticeship, even though he had to undergo medical treatment during this period. 2. It appears that the respondents have not considered the his name for appointment on regular basis, for such posts which were advertised, for the reasons that he suffered physical disability. 3. Be that as it may be, Mr. Vikas Bharadwaj, learned counsel for the petitioner has invited my attention to the decision rendered by the Apex Court in U.P State Road Transport Corporation & anr. Vs. U.P Parivahan Nigam Shishukhs Berozgar Sangh & Ors (1995)2 SCC 1 to contend that even though, there is no contractual obligation inter se between the parties to give employment to the petitioner, but none the less, principles laid-down by the Apex Court ought to have been followed by the respondents, keeping in view the object , purpose and spirit of the Apprentice Act, 1961. 4. It is noticed that notice in this petition was issued on 30-12-1995 and inspite of opportunities afforded, respondents have not filed reply. Mr. Adarsh Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently argued that in the absence of any contractual obligation, it is not obligatory on the part of the respondents to give employment to 3 the petitioner after successful completion of period of apprenticeship. 5. Petitioner is not seeking appointment simply for the reason that he has completed his period of apprenticeship. But then respondents ought to have given preference to petitioner over the other direct recruits. In the absence of any other legal impediment, petitioner’s physical disability cannot come in way of public employment. 6. The principles culled out by the apex Court in U.P State Road Transport Corporation & anr. Vs. U.P Parivahan Nigam (supra) after construing provisions of Section 22 of Apprentice Act are as under:- “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: (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 (1987) 2 SCC 308 would permit this. (3) If age bar would come in the way of 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 4 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.” (at P.6) 7. These principles stand reiterated by the apex Court in U.P Rajya Vidyut Parishad Apprentice Welfare Association & Anr. Vs. State of U.P & Ors (2000) 5 SCC 438,State of U.P & anr. Vs. Ishwar Kant Behari (2001) 10 SCC 694, Port of Calcutta & Ors. vs. Avijit Kumar Ray & Ors(2009)1 SCC 743 and Santosh Kumar Tripathi & ors. vs. Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation & Ors(2009)14 SCC 210. 8. As such, there shall be a direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner’s case for appointment in accordance with law, in the light of observations made hereinabove and directions issued by the apex Court in its various judicial pronouncements. Needful shall positively be done within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. 9. With the aforesaid observations, the present petition stands disposed of, so also the pending applications, if any. (Sanjay Karol),Judge. December 23,2011 (Priti)