Writ Petition No.27 of 2006. Case: Manisha Naik Vs Director Of Printing Press And Stationery, Panaji. High Court of Bombay (India)

Case NumberWrit Petition No.27 of 2006
CounselJ Godinho, M S Sonak, S S Kantak
JudgesN. A. Britto, J.
IssueApprentices Act, 1961 - Section 22
Judgement DateApril 19, 2006
CourtHigh Court of Bombay (India)

Judgment:

Rule.

Heard forthwith. The petitioner, an apprentice, has challenged the selection of respondent No. 3, a non-apprentice to the post of Binder, Grade II with respondent No. 1. We have heard Mr. M. S. Sonak, the learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. S. S. Kantak, the learned Advocate General on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 as well as mr. J. Godinho, the learned Counsel on behalf of the respondent No. 3.

As per the Recruitment Rules applicable to the post of Binder, Grade II, the essential qualifications are that a candidate should have a certificate of successful completion of apprenticeship under the apprentices Act, 1961 in the trade of a Binder or (1) the candidate should have passed Eighth standard in English and (2) three years experience in the trade. The petitioner qualified for the said post by virtue of the petitioner having worked as an apprentice and having acquired national apprenticeship certificate, in the Government Printing Press for the period from 7-1-1999 to 31-3-2001 and also having worked with respondent No. 1 as a Binder on contract basis from 10-3-2003 to 9-6-2003 and from 16-6-2003 till date and respondent No. 3 qualified having produced an experience certificate from Ms. Edisson Book Binders having worked for them for 8 years as a Book binder and also having passed S. S. C. examination.

A duly constituted Departmental selection Committee fixed certain criteria for the purposes of selection of candidates and in that the said Committee allotted 40 marks for practical test in Book Binding, 20 marks for practical test in Glue Binding, 10 marks for paper cutting, 10 marks for cutting of sheets, etc., 5 marks for basic qualification and 5 marks for interview performance. The petitioner obtained 1 mark in basic qualification while respondent No. 3 obtained 3 marks for basic qualification. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that once the qualifications were prescribed under the Rules there was no question of allotting any marks for basic qualifications. It may be so. However, the fact remains that the petitioner got 20 marks in Book Binding whilst respondent No. 3 got 32- marks. Two other apprentices by name Goltekar and Shetye got 30 marks and 34 marks respectively. This we have indicated only because some of the apprentices did very well at the practical tests. The petitioner got 60 marks in the aggregate while respondent No. 3 got 73% marks in the aggregate. There were in...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT