HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
WRIT PETITION No.5572 OF 2021
ORDER:
When the matter is taken up for hearing, counsel for the petitioner had contended that the petitioner is fully eligible and qualified to be appointed to the post of Welder Trainee and the respondent Company has issued recruitment notification on 22.02.2021, wherein the maximum age limit prescribed for the post of Welder Trainee was only 35 years for SC, ST & BC candidates, whereas the petitioner was aged 36 years at the time of issuance of the notification. Counsel for the petitioner had further contended that the petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking age relaxation in terms of the law laid by the Honourable Supreme Court in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and another v. U.P. Parivahan Nigam Shishukhs Berozgar Sangh and others1, wherein the Honourable Supreme Court, at paragraph 12, held as under:
"...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:-
(1) Other things being equal, a trained apprentice should be given preference over direct recruits.
(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 1 AIR 1995 SC 1115 2 AKS,J W.P.No.5572 of 2021 (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 this 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.
(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."
2. Counsel for the petitioner further contended that in view of the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment, the respondents ought to have relaxed the age of the petitioner, but no such relaxation was granted to the petitioner. Therefore, counsel contended that appropriate orders be passed in the writ petition directing the respondents to consider age relaxation of the petitioner and permit the petitioner to participate in the selection process for the post of Welder Trainee.
3. Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Company had contended that the entire recruitment process is over and the posts notified are filled up and, at this point of time, the case of the petitioner cannot be considered as all the posts notified are filled up and the petitioner has also not impleaded the selected candidates. Standing Counsel further contended that the petitioner cannot seek age relaxation as a matter of right, therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
3 AKS,J
W.P.No.5572 of 2021
4. This Court, having considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for respective parties, is of the considered view that the petitioner has not even submitted an application before the authorities seeking consideration of his application for the post of Welder Trainee and, as on today, all the vacancies notified are filled up and, at this point of time, this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition.
5. Counsel for the petitioner had contended that the petitioner has submitted a detailed representation to the respondents on 01.02.2021 and at least let the respondents consider the said representation for the future recruitment.
6. Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents had contended that since the petitioner's representation is pending, the respondents would consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
7. In view of the above submissions, this Court is of the considered view that this writ petition can be disposed of directing the respondents to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner on 01.02.2021 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within a reasonable period of time.
8. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
______________________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J 16.11.2021 vv