Special Appeal Defective No. 110 of 2015. Case: Nanhey Singh and Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Ors.. High Court of Allahabad (India)
Case Number | Special Appeal Defective No. 110 of 2015 |
Counsel | For Appellant: Rohit Singh, Adv. and For Respondents: C.S.C., J.P. Pandey and Mahboob Ahmad |
Judges | Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, C.J. and Suneet Kumar, J. |
Issue | Apprentices Act, 1961 - Section 22; Constitution of India - Article 142 |
Judgement Date | February 06, 2015 |
Court | High Court of Allahabad (India) |
Judgment:
-
The fifty two appellants had come up in writ jurisdiction before the learned Single Judge assailing an order dated 8.5.2014 of the third respondent who is the Managing Director of the Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd. Lucknow. The third respondent had rejected the claim of the appellants seeking preference for appointment to Class-III posts/technical grade-II (T.G.-II), Fireman, Lineman etc. and an advertisement dated 6.9.2014 issued by the fourth respondent (Secretary, Vidhyut Sewa Ayog Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd.) for not granting preference to the appellants in the vacancies offered. The appellants also sought a direction to the respondents to give a preference to apprentice trainees in the selection process as well as in age pursuant to the directions of the Supreme Court in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and others v. U.P. Parivahan Nigam Shikshak Berozgar Sangh AIR 1995 SC 1115. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition by an order dated 24.11.2014 which is assailed in the special appeal.
-
The appellants contended that they had completed their ITI in different trades and had undertaken apprentice training in various departments of the respondents under the Apprentice Act, 19611. After completing the training the appellants claimed to have been engaged on contract basis. Some of them are still working on contract. The appellants claim that the State Council for Vocational Training established in all States by the Ministry of Labour, Government of India, issued certificates to them. The appellants seek compliance of the directions given in U.P. Road Transport Corporation (supra) which have been incorporated in various Government Orders and circulars issued from time to time by the respondents including a Government Order dated 12.9.1996. The appellants have also sought parity with the decisions rendered in Vijay Shankar Sharma v. State of U.P. and others (Writ A. No. 16154 of 2005) decided on 19.5.2005, Sherpal and others v. State of U.P. and others (Writ A No. 51513 of 2006) decided on 19.11.2012, Nanhey Singh and others v. State of U.P. and others (Writ A No. 41431 of 2009) decided on 26.3.2014.
-
The learned Single Judge referring to a Full Bench decision rendered in Arvind Gautam v. State of U.P. and others 1999 (2) ESC1394 (All), rejected the claim of the appellants for preference in appointment on class-III posts.
-
The contention on behalf of the appellants that the respondents be...
To continue reading
Request your trial