Case: 1. U.P. Power Corporation Ltd., B.K. Bhatt and Anr. and Kirpa Shanker, 2. Ashok Kumar Khurana and Ors. Vs 1. Mohd. Waseem, 2. Mohd. Waseem. High Court of Allahabad (India)
| Judges | Pradeep Kant and Ritu Raj Awasthi, JJ. |
| Issue | Service Laws |
| Judgement Date | December 24, 2009 |
| Court | High Court of Allahabad (India) |
Judgment:
Ritu Raj Awasthi, J., (Lucknow Bench)
-
Heard Sri S.K. Kalia, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Sameer kalia for the appellant, Sri R.N. Gupta for the respondent and perused the record.
-
These are a bunch of appeals arising out of the judgment dated 30.11.1995 passed in Writ Petition No. 4532 (ss) of 1992 (Mohd. Waseem v. U.P. State Electricity Board and Ors.) and the orders passed in Contempt Petition filed for compliance of the judgment and order dated 30.11.1995 i.e. Criminal Misc. Case No. 318 (c)/1997 (Mohd. Waseem v. Sri Ajay Singh and Ors.). All these appeals have been heard together as they involve the same controversy. The details of these appeals are as under:
-
Special Appeal No. 87/2002 was filed by the U.P. Power Corporation Ltd against the judgment and order dated 30.11.1995, passed in W.P. No. 4532 (s/s) of 1992 Mohd. Waseem v. U.P. State Power Corporation Ltd and Ors.
-
Special Appeal No. 214 (S/B) of 2006 (B.K. Bhatt and Anr. v. Mohd. Waseem) filed against the judgment and order dated 30.11.1995 passed in W.P. No. 4532 (s/s) of 1992.
-
Contempt Appeal No. 40 of 2006 filed by Ashok Kumar Khurana, B. K. Bhatt and Harish Chandra Singh under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act against the order dated 04.04.2006 passed in Criminal Misc. Case No. 318 (C) of 1997 (Mohd. Waseem v. Sri Ajai Singh and Ors.) by which application for discharge of notice was rejected.
-
Contempt Appeal No. 12 of 2006 was filed by Sri Kripa Shanker under Section 19 of the Contempt of Court Act, against the order dated 10.01.2006 passed in Criminal Misc. Case No. 318 (C) of 1997, by which the appellant was held guilty of contempt of court under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India and sentenced for three months R.I. and a fine of Rs. 2,000/-.
-
In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the present appeals and the question which has cropped up for our consideration it is necessary to narrate certain facts of the case in brief.
-
The respondent was engaged as an apprentice Draftsman for a period of one year on 22.08.1988. He was again engaged as on muster roll for a period of three moths w.e.f. 01.01.1990, thereafter he was discontinued. The respondent feeling aggrieved filed writ petition No. 4532 (ss) of 1992 against dis-continuance and for regular appointment on the post of Draftsman/Tracer with all consequential benefits.
-
By the judgment and order dated 30.11.1995 the said writ petition was allowed, directing the respondent Board to consider the case of the present respondent provided there are vacant post for appointment keeping in view the following conditions:
-
Other thing being equal, a trained apprentice should be given preference over direct recruits.
-
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. Hargopal AIR 1987 SC 1227 would permit this.
-
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 concerned service rule. 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.
-
The concerned training institute would maintain a list of the persons trained year wise. 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.
-
However, I made it clear that while considering the case of petitioner for giving employment on a post, the rules laid down in the service regulations of Electricity Board shall be followed except that the petitioner would not be required to appear in any written examination if any provided by the regulations. Before considering the case of the petitioner, the requirement of his name being sponsored by the employment exchange would not be insisted upon. In so far as the age requirement is concerned, the same shall be relaxed as indicated above.
-
The aforesaid decision was issued, apparently in view of the pronouncement made by the Supreme Court in the case of U.P.S.R.T.C. and Anr. v. U.P. Parivahan Nigam Shishukhs Berozgar Sangh and Ors. 1995 UPLBEC 320 which read as under:
...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:
-
Other thing beings equal, a trained apprentice should be given preference over direct recruits.
-
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. Hargopal AIR 1987 SC 1227 would permit this. 3. If...
To continue reading
Request your trial