G.Shankar vs The Singareni Collieries Company ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 3494 Tel

       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

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