W.P. (C) No. 26/2009. Case: Puneet and Anr. Vs Union of India (UOI) and Ors.. High Court of Delhi (India)

Case NumberW.P. (C) No. 26/2009
CounselFor Appellant: K.C. Mittal, Adv. and For Respondents: H.K. Gangwani, Adv.
JudgesPradeep Nandrajog and Mool Chand Garg, JJ.
IssueApprentices Act, 1961; Apprentices Rules, 1991
Judgement DateJuly 20, 2010
CourtHigh Court of Delhi (India)

Judgment:

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.

  1. Petitioners Puneet and Nafe Singh underwent apprenticeship training at the Government of India Press Faridabad and successfully completed the apprenticeship for a period of two years. Nafe Singh underwent apprenticeship from 7.10.1997 to 6.10.1999. Puneet underwent apprenticeship from 7.10.1998 to 6.10.2000.

  2. They applied for being appointed as Assistant Binders when respondent No. 3 issued an advertisement in the month of November 2007 to fill up 23 unreserved seats, 1 seat in SC category, 4 seats in ST category and 17 seats in OBC category. It may be noted that whereas Nafe Singh applied under the OBC category, Puneet applied under the SC category.

  3. It is important to state here that as per the applicable Recruitment Rule the post in question has been listed as a 'Non-Selection'.

  4. Needless to state there were many applicants who were subjected to a practical test and an interview and when the final list was notified, the petitioners found that their names were not on the select panel.

  5. The petitioners filed a petition before the Central Administrative Tribunal which was registered as OA No. 2318/2008 in which they claimed that persons who had done apprenticeship much after them had been selected. In a nut shell, they claimed before the Tribunal that as per the decision of the Supreme Court reported as 1995 (2) SCC 1 U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Anr. v. U.P. Parivahan Nigam Shishukhs Berozgar Sangh and Ors., they i.e. the petitioners having successfully undergone apprenticeship course for which necessary certificates were issued to them, they would be entitled for appointment on account of they being senior.

  6. Though not pleaded very clearly, but it is apparent that what the petitioners were saying was that the post being a 'Non Selection Post' the question of comparative merit as was being claimed by the respondents was not the criteria and that the criteria was that those who were declared suitable, irrespective of who was better than the other, the ones who has completed apprenticeship earlier would be required to be treated as senior and hence would be entitled to be appointed.

  7. For the reason, as would be evident from what we would be noting hereinafter, the claim was not predicated with clarity before the Tribunal, the real issue has got side-tracked.

  8. Needless to state as per the respondents, a stand taken before the Tribunal and reflected in the decision of the Tribunal, the petitioners having participated in the trade test conducted by the respondents and having subjected themselves to an interview, could not stake a claim that the post was a 'Non Selection Post'. It was further the case of the respondents that having subjected themselves to the trade test and an interview, petitioners had acquiesced in the selection process being merit based.

  9. The Tribunal has found favour with the arguments...

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