Hemant Gupta, J.:— The challenge in the present writ petition is to the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh, on 8.5.2002, whereby an Original Application filed by the petitioners seeking preferential appointment having undergone apprenticeship training, has been dismissed.
2. The petitioners approached the Tribunal vide an application filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (for short ‘the Act’) on the ground that the Administration has issued instructions from time to time for adjustment of the candidates, who have completed the apprenticeship under the Apprentices Act, 1961 and for giving preference in employment to those who got training from the Chandigarh Administration for appointment as Station Sub Attendant in the Electricity Department of the Chandigarh Administration.
3. The petitioners have undergone appenticeship training in the trade of Switch Board Attendant. The petitioners applied for appointment to the post of Station Sub Attendant. They were called for interview, but the appointments have been made by ignoring the petitioners in violation of the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in U.P Road Transport Corporation v. U.P Parivahan Nigam Shishukhs Bereozgar Sangh, (1995) 2 SCC 1 : AIR 1995 Supreme Court 1115, and the Instructions (Annexure A. 4 and Annexure A. 5).
4. In reply, the Administration has pointed out that 27 vacancies were conveyed to the Regional Employment Exchange, but the Administration proceeded for selection of candidates for appointment against the existing 10 number of vacancies. The Selection Committee prepared the merit list as per the qualification and performance of the candidates before the Selection Committee during the interview. The petitioners have participated in the selection process and having remained unsuccessful, they cannot be permitted to dispute the selection process. It was pleaded that under the Rules, candidates possessing National Trade Certificate in the trade of electrician are entitled for consideration for appointment to the post of Station Sub Attendant and that the preference can only be given the Apperentices of U.T, Chandigarh, if other things are equal, but no preference can be given if other qualifications are not equal. It is further pointed out that the petitioners have been permitted to compete in the selection process and they have been interviewed.
5. The learned Tribunal dismissed the Original Application, inter-alia, on the ground the the Selection Committee, prepared merit list as per the qualification and performance during interview, but the applicants failed to qualify and did not find place in the list. The petitioners participated in the process of selection and after failing to get their place in merit, on the basis of criteria framed, have chosen to file the original application before the Tribunal. The selection process was found to be fair and reasonable by the learned Tribunal. It was held that the petitioners are estopped from challenging the same.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we do not find any merit in the present petition. The petitioner has claimed a preferential right of appointment being an apprentice. Such was the case set up in Dharam Pal v. State of Punjab, 2000 (3) SCT 573, wherein the Division Bench of this Court, has held to the following effect:
“4. There cannot be any dispute to the fact that for appointment to the post of Lineman, a written test was held and merit list was prepared. Furthermore, such appointments were primarily given other persons who had obtained a national apprenticeship certificate. The petitioner has no indefeasible right to the appointment as Lineman unless and until he is entitled on the basis of his merit and the written test and the criteria adopted for selection and appointment to the post of Lineman.”
7. Consequently, we do not find any merit in the writ petitions.
8. Hence, both the writ petitions are dismissed.
9. Petitions dismissed.