Lpa No. 19 of 2008 · Gujarat High Court

CORAM : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE R.M.DOSHIT LPA/19/2008 JUDGMENT HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER Date : 03/03/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE R.M.DOSHIT) Draft amendment is allowed. The amendment shall be carried out within one week from today. This Appeal, preferred under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, arises from the order dated 5th December, 2007 made by the learned Single Judge in above Special Civil Application No.15846 of 2007. The appellant, writ petitioner, was engaged by the Gujarat Electricity Board, respondent No.2 herein (hereinafter referred to as “the Board”) as an apprentice in the trade of lineman. On satisfactory completion of the apprenticeship, the appellant was empaneled for appointment as helper under the Board. On the date he was called for interview, he had crossed the age of 35 years. He, therefore, was denied appointment as helper. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant preferred above Special Civil Application No.15846 of 2007 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The appellant claimed that he LPA/19/2008 JUDGMENT had a right to appointment in the Board. The claim has been rejected by the learned Single Judge. Therefore, the present Appeal. It is not in dispute that the appellant was engaged as an apprentice. The period of his apprenticeship has been completed and that his name had been empaneled for appointment as helper. Section 22 of the Apprentices Act, 1961 provides, inter alia, that the employer is under no obligation to offer employment to the apprentice. Therefore, in our view, the appellant had no right to employment merely because he had completed apprenticeship under the Board. However, it appears that the Board, under its office order dated 26th October, 1983, decided to make appointment to various technical posts from amongst the apprentices who have completed apprenticeship satisfactorily. It is pursuant to the said order and subsequent circulars issued in that behalf, the apprentices who are eligible for appointment to various technical posts are enlisted for offer of employment as and when the vacancy arises.

Under these orders, apprentices are mere source of recruitment but the apprentices are neither offered LPA/19/2008 JUDGMENT employment nor do they confer right to employment upon the apprentices. Their appointment would necessarily be governed by the relevant recruitment rules. As per the relevant requirement for appointment to any post under the Board in Class IV service, the maximum age prescribed under the general standing order No.7 dated 4th October, 1960 is 25 years. However, in case of apprentices, the said age has been extended to 35 years i.e. on the date of offer of employment the concerned apprentice shall not be more than 35 years of age. In the present case, indisputably, the appellant had crossed the age of 35 years on the relevant date. The appellant, therefore, was not offered employment. In our view, the appellant failed to answer the requirement for employment in the Board. He was rightly refused the employment.

No case for interference is made out. The Appeal is dismissed in limine. Ms. Vashi has submitted that in view of the ban imposed upon new appointment in the Board, by Board Resolution No.1 of 2007 dated 11th January, 2007, the LPA/19/2008 JUDGMENT Board has decided to extend the said age limit of 35 years further in case of apprentices who had completed 35 years of age after 10th November, 2004 till 17th January, 2007. Ms. Vashi has submitted that the present appellant has fallen short by 15 days. Lest he would have become entitled to the benefit of extended age limit under the above referred Resolution No.1 of 2007. She has submitted that under the relevant GSO, power to relax the age limit has been reserved to the Board. This being an especially hard case, the Board be directed to exercise the power to relax the age limit. It would be beyond the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue such a direction to the Board.