APHC010081272011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3330] FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No: 4970 of 2011 Between: Pentapati Srinivasu & 15 Ors. and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND V C M D Apsrtc 4 Ors and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. T S VENKATARAMANA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. ARAVALA RAMA RAO 2. SOLOMON RAJU MANCHALAFOR (APSRTC) The Court made the following: 2 ORDER: The facts in the writ petition in nutshell are: I deem it is not necessary for me to burden this order by referring the contentions of all the writ petitioners, but suffice to state the averments in brief. The petitioners would submit that they hold an ITI Diesel Mechanic Trade certificate and have completed their apprenticeship in accordance with Section 22(2) of the Apprentices Act, 52 of 1961, while working for the corporation since 2005. Despite this, the respondents have announced a vacancy for 3,623 Shramik positions, without considering the equestrian of the petitioners for regularisation, and now the petitioners have crossed the age limits and not regularising the petitioners by the respondents corporation is arbitrary, illegal and discriminative consequently prayed to regularise their services as Shramiks. 2. It is necessary to note that the writ petitioners have pleaded to continue their services pending disposal of the writ petition, however, the common High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad had not granted the interim relief to continue the services of the writ petitioners. 3. It is the defence of the respondents: The petitioners were not appointed by the corporation and the petitioners are working under the control of the contractors and who were hired through the outsourcing contract on tender basis and the writ petitioners are contract employees and their appointment was not made in accordance with any regular procedure no right accrued in favour of the petitioners for regularisation to maintain the writ petition and there is 3 no obligation to provide job to the apprentices who have undergone apprenticeship under Section 22(2) of the Apprentices Act, 1961, however, the respondents corporation has issued notification inviting applications for recruitment for filling up the posts of Shramiks giving age relaxation and the recruitment has been conducted based upon the requirement as Shramiks. The counsel for the respondents relied on the order of this Court in W.P.No.18792 of 2011 and batch dated 06.12.2024. 4. Heard Sri N.B. Chandra Sekhar, learned counsel for the writ petitioners and Sri Vinod Kumar Tarlada, learned counsel for the respondents: POINT FOR CONSIDERATION: 5. For the facility and for effective disposal of the writ petition, relevant provision is hereby extracted: Sec.22: Offer and acceptance of employment.- (1) Every employer shall formulate its own policy for recruiting any apprentice who has completed the period of apprenticeship training in his establishment. (2) Notwithstanding anything in sub-section (1), where there is a condition in a contract of apprenticeship that the apprentice shall, after the successful completion of the apprenticeship training, serve the employer, the employer shall, on such completion, be bound to offer suitable employment to the apprentice, and the apprentice shall be 4 bound to serve the employer in that capacity for such period and on such remuneration as may be specified in the contract: Provided that where such period or remuneration is not, in the opinion of the Apprenticeship Adviser, reasonable, he may revise such period or remuneration so as to make it reasonable, and the period or remuneration so revised shall be deemed to be the period or remuneration agreed to between the apprentice and the employer. 6. At the outset, it is the contention of the writ petitioners that they are working as Shramiks in the respondents corporation for the last 5 to 6 years before filing of the writ petition and argues that issuing a notification to fill Shramik positions without regularizing their services would be detrimental to their interests as they have crossed the age as prescribed in the recruitment notification and they have undergone the Apprenticeship conducted by the respondents and it is obligatory on the respondents to accept the employment under the employers as per Section 22 (2) of the Apprenticeship Act 1961. 7. 7. It is the case of the respondent corporation the writ petitioners are contract employers and they have no right to seek regularization, their appointment was not made in accordance with any regular procedure and no right accrued in favour of the petitioners for regularisation and there is no obligation to provide job to the apprentices who have undergone apprenticeship under Section 22(1) of the Apprentices Act, 5 52 of 1961 and the corporation has recruited Shramik posts through a regular procedure after giving the age relaxation to the petitioners. 8. The judgment of the Apex Court in a case Narender Kumar And Ors vs State Of Punjab And Ors reported in 1985 (1) SCC 130 is relevant to the issue in the writ petition, after considering the Section 22(2) of the Apprenticeship Act, 1961 the Apex Court outlined that under Section 22(2) of the Apprentices Act 1961, it creates a binding obligation upon the employer to absorb the apprentices in the department on the successful completion of the training period, provided there is a vacancy in which the apprentices can be appointed and it would be contrary if the employer fill that vacancy by appointing an outsider if there is a vacancy in which an apprentice can be appointed after the successful completion of his training. The object of that provision is to guarantee, to the extent of the existence of vacancies, that the apprentices will not be rendered jobless after they complete their training. Such a reading of section would frustrate the very object of the provision made by the legislature in Section 22 (2) of the Act. 9. I will consider the present case as per the observations as outlined in the above quoted judgment of the Apex Court, first of all, there should be a vacancy to appoint the apprentices. In the present case, the respondents have issued notification on 01.11.2010 for recruitment of 3623 posts Shramiks and the said posts were filled up as per the notification in accordance with procedure as per relevant rules. As seen from the pleading of the writ petitioners and the counter filed by the respondents the petitioners were not appointed in accordance with any regular procedure and there is no evidence to suggest that the 6 appointment of the petitioners are on a contractual basis or an ad-hoc basis following the procedure as ruled in the judgment. And as per the Judgment of Apex Court in State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 that there should not be back door entry and every post should be filled by regular employment and as observed in the same judgment the writ petitioners have not completed their work for 10 years and the respondents have allowed the petitioners to compete, waiving the age restriction imposed for the recruitment. 10. Although the respondent corporation has not disputed the fact that the writ petitioners have undergone apprenticeship, they did not receive any certification. Furthermore the petitioners were given employment for some period and the Section 22(2) that does not imply the petitioners necessarily entitled to be absorbed thus violating the proper recruitment procedure. 11. The order in W.P.No.18792 of 2011 and batch dated 06.12.2024 relied by the counsel for the respondents is for reinstatement into service with back wages and continuity of service in the present case the writ petitioners are seeking to regularise their service relying on Section 22(2) of the Apprenticeship Act, 1961, as the order relied is not applicable to the facts of the case in hand. 12. After giving my anxious consideration and analysing the judgments and Section 22(2) of the Apprenticeship Act, 1961 referred supra, the writ petitioners are not entitled for the relief as prayed and the writ petition is dismissed the rule nisi issued shall stand discharged and however, there shall be no order as to costs. 7 As a sequel thereto, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date: 27.06.2025 SPP 8 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.4970 of 2011 Date: 27.06.2025 SPP