Partly allowed

Libin Joseph v. Transformers and Electricals Kerala Ltd.

Kerala HC12 Oct 2009WP(C)/20787/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, an unappointed apprentice, sought preference in recruitment under the Apprentices Act. Court held that preference requires equal qualifications but quashed non-application of written test, allowing fresh selection process with weightage for apprenticeship.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to apply within one week of judgment via fresh notification; to be considered with weightage for apprenticeship if marks are equal.

Libin Joseph Vs Transformers and Electricals… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI

¶4

MONDAY, THE 12TH OCTOBER 2009 / 20TH ASWINA 1931

¶5

WP(C).No. 20787 of 2009(P)

¶6

-------------------------PETITIONER: ------------------

¶7

LIBIN JOSEPH, S/O.P.C.JOSEPH, PULICKAMTHADATHIL HOUSE, N.R.CITY P.O., N.R.CITY, RAJAKADU, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN-685 566.

¶8

BY ADV. MR. K.J.JOSEMON MR. MATHEW SKARIA MR. JOSE THOMAS (PEEDIKAYIL)

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

---------------------

¶11

1. TRANSFORMERS AND ELECTRICALS KERALA LIMITED, ( A GOVERNMENT OF KERALA UNDERTAKING) ANGAMALY SOUTH, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683 573 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶12

2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, TRANSFORMERS AND ELECTRICALS KERALA LIMITED, ANGAMALY SOUTH, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683 573.

¶13

3. N.M.SHAMEER, OPERATOR GRADE-III TRAINEE-MACHINIST, TRANSFORMERS AND ELECTRICALS KERALA LIMITED, ANGAMALY SOUTH, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683 573.

¶14

4. O.S.ANOOP, OPERATOR GRADE-III TRAINEE-MACHINIST, TRANSFORMERS AND ELECTRICALS KERALA LIMITED, ANGAMALY SOUTH, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683 573.

¶15

5. S.R.SUBHASH, OPERATOR GRADE-III TRAINEE-MACHINIST, TRANSFORMERS AND ELECTRICALS KERALA LIMITED, ANGAMALY SOUTH, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683 573.

¶16

6. A.NOUSHAD, OPERATOR GRADE-III TRAINEE-MACHINIST, TRANSFORMERS AND ELECTRICALS KERALA LIMITED, ANGAMALY SOUTH, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683 573.

¶17

R1 & R2 BY ADV. MR. M.PATHROSE MATHAI, SENIOR ADVOCATE MR. SAJI VARGHESE, STANDING COUNSEL SMT. MARIAM MATHAI MR. P.THOMAS GEEVERGHESE

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

kkms/

¶20

V.GIRI, J.

¶21

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = == = = = = = = W.P.(C). No. 20787 OF 2009

¶22

= = = = = = = = = = = = = == = = = = = = =

¶23

Dated this the 12^th day of October 2009.

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

Petitioner had undergone apprenticeship training as a Trade Machinist in the Transformers and Electricals Kerala Limited, first respondent Company as evidenced by Ext.P2. First respondent invited applications from eligible persons for appointment to the post of Operator Grade III Trainee-Machinist. Petitioner was also interviewed, ultimately, he was not appointed. Hence this writ petition claiming that since the petitioner was an apprentice, he was entitled to preference, in terms of the provisions of the Apprentices Act. Reliance has also been placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in U.P.State Road Transport Corporation and another v. U.P.Parivahan Nigam Shishukhs Berozgar Sangh and others (AIR 1995 SUPREME COURT 1115) .

¶26

A counter statement has been filed on behalf of the first respondent and reply has been filed by the petitioner.

¶27

I heard Mr. K.J.Josemon, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Saji Varghese, learned Counsel for the first

¶28

W.P.(C). No. 20787 OF 2009

¶29

¶30

respondent. Learned Counsel for the petitioner made reliance on Para 12 in the Supreme Court judgment which reads as follows.

¶31

“ 13. In the background of what has been noted above, 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:-

¶32

(1) Other things being equal, a trained apprentice should be given preference over direct recruits.

¶33

(2) 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.

¶34

(3) 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.

¶35

(4) 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.”

¶36

W.P.(C). No. 20787 OF 2009

¶37

¶38

It is contended that for an apprentice, a written test was not necessary and therefore if the marks obtained in the written test is eschewed from consideration, then the petitioner ought to have been selected.

¶39

Learned Counsel for the first respondent brings to my notice, the judgment of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 4166/2008, Santhosh Kumar Tripathi & Others v. U.P. Power Corporation & Others , wherein the dictum laid down in U.P.State Road Transport Corporation and another (AIR 1995 SUPREME COURT 1115) has been considered and clarified. It has been made clear that the exemption from written examination, as far as an apprentice is concerned was applicable only to the petitioners in U.P.State Road Transport Corporation and another (AIR 1995 SUPREME COURT 1115). It has also been clarified that if the service regulations insists on written examination, then all participants are liable to participate in the written examination and this shall not exclude apprentices as well.

¶40

I also take note of the fact that the selection process was not challenged by the petitioner. Apprentices may be entitled to

¶41

W.P.(C). No. 20787 OF 2009

¶42

¶43

preference, provided all other things are equal. In the present case, the contesting respondents were awarded higher marks than that of the petitioner. If the marks awarded were equal, then possibly the petitioner could have claimed a preference, on the strength of the dictum laid down in U.P.State Road Transport Corporation and another v. U.P.Parivahan Nigam Shishukhs Berozgar Sangh and others (AIR 1995 SUPREME COURT 1115) .

¶44

I do not find anything illegal in the action taken by the first respondent. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that there are still vacancies in the post of Operator Grade III and therefore the petitioner can be directed to be accommodated in preference to others. Learned Counsel for the first respondent submits that the rank list which was prepared earlier will not be operated upon further and the remaining vacancies will be filled up after a fresh recruitment, for which advertisements have already been made. This submission is recorded.

¶45

In the circumstances, if the petitioner applies within a week from today, notwithstanding the last date for application

¶46

W.P.(C). No. 20787 OF 2009

¶47

¶48

mentioned in the said fresh notification, petitioner shall also be treated as having applied within time and shall be again subjected to the same selection process. Needless to say, if other things are equal, then the fact that he had undertaken apprenticeship training in the first respondent shall be given due weightage and taken note of.

¶49

Writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶50

( V.GIRI ) JUDGE

¶51

kkms/

Libin Joseph v. Transformers and Electricals Kerala Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Libin Joseph v. Transformers and Electricals Kerala Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.K.Shibu Vs State of Kerala and Others

P.C.Chakochen Vs State of Kerala & Others

S.Sreekumar Vs Chief Engineer(Hrm)Kseb

A.R.Madhukumar Vs the State of Kerala and Others

S.K.Umadhathakumar Vs State of Kerala and Others

C.a.Aboobaker Vs the Director,Scheduled Caste Development