Writ Petition No. 1681 of 1999. Case: Shiv Kumar Soni Vs Chairman-cum-Managing Director, South Eastern Coal Field Ltd. and Ors.. Chhattisgarh High Court
| Case Number | Writ Petition No. 1681 of 1999 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Smitha Ghai, Adv. and For Respondents: P.S. Nair, Sr. Adv. and Vinod Deshmukh, Adv. |
| Judges | Satish K. Agnihotri, J. |
| Issue | Service Law |
| Citation | 2006 (3) CGLJ 289 |
| Judgement Date | April 27, 2006 |
| Court | Chhattisgarh High Court |
Order:
Satish K. Agnihotri, J., (At Bilaspur)
-
The Petitioner, undisputedly completed his I.T.I. apprenticeship during the period from 7.2.1986 to 7.2.1988 at South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd., Manikpur Colliery. On the basis of his apprenticeship certificate, the Petitioner applied for appointment on the post of General Mazdoor Category-1. The admitted case of the Petitioner is that the Petitioner appeared in written test on 3.12.1997 and interview held on 6.12.1997 and the Petitioner was found in the select list at serial No. 99. Out of the said select list 42 persons were appointed on the basis of the available vacancies. The Petitioner was again interviewed on 10.9.1998 but his case was not considered for appointment on the ground of being age-barred.
-
The contention of Smt. Smitha Ghai, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner is that the Petitioner being a member of other backward class (O.B.C.), is entitled to relaxation in age and also in view of the judgment and order of the Supreme Court in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Anr. v. U.P. Parivahan Nigam Shishukhs Berozgar Sangh and Ors (1995) 2 SCC 1.
-
The Petitioner has filed this petition seeking a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate direction, commanding the Respondents to appoint the Petitioner on the post of General Mazdoor Category-1.
-
On the other hand, Shri P.S. Nair, learned Senior counsel, assisted by Shri Vinod Deshmukh, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents, submitted that the Petitioner had produced the O.B.C. category certificate at the time of interview, not earlier. Even otherwise the case of the Petitioner was considered giving all the reliefs as has been directed by the Supreme Court in the case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Anr. (1995) 2 SCC 1, (supra). The Petitioner has been found age-barred. It was further contended that it has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of Chairman/MD, Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. and Ors. v. Sadashib Behera and Ors. (2005) 2 SCC 396, as under:
-
These provisions show that apprentice is a person who is undergoing a training in pursuance of a contract of apprenticeship duly registered with the Apprenticeship Adviser and the employer who is imparting training is under no obligation to offer any employment to such a person. The legislature has made the aforesaid position clear by making a specific provision in this regard namely Section 22 of the Act and Sub-section (1) thereof lays down...
To continue reading
Request your trial