Legal Question in Employment Law in India

Dear Sir,

I have been the victim of injustice in High Court of AP

One of the PSU located at Hyderabad had sent the requisition to employment exchange for filling up the vacancies for the various posts in wage group-2 in June 2009

I came to know about the notification and requested the employment officer at exchange to sponsor my name for the same but due to labs of my seniority the officer said he can�t send my name

A group of 5 people including me approach the High court and filed a writ on basis of courts interim directions the PSU allowed appearing the written test along with sponsored candidates, qualified for practical test and I was successful in interview

My name was is selected list of candidates the results were published over the website

Subsequently I was offered for the post of junior technician in wage group 2 in offer letter with a heading �preliminary proposal of offer of appointment�

I accepted the offer and submitted all the required documents along with police verification certificate, medical tests certificate and I was asked get closed of the writ, in the court at the time of interim order the PSU didn�t raise any objection but after I had gone through all the test and got offer letter and submitted all the required documents along with police verification certificate

In the main final argument in the court the PSU contented that the recruitment rule No.21.1 permit only employment exchange sponsored candidates to be recruited and got dismissed the writ

At the time interim order the consul representing my side was inexperienced and filed an other mp in same wp but the interim mp was not closed

I changed my consul and filed a review petition in the review the PSU contended that it the offer letter was a mere preliminary proposal of offer of appointment. And got dismissed on pretext of recruitment rule No.21.1says

All Direct Recruitment vacancies in Wage Groups-E (WG-7) and below are to be notified to the local Employment Exchanges. Vacancies of Scientific and Technical nature in Groups-D (WG-6) & E (WG-7) should be simultaneously notified to the Central Employment Exchanges also. If the Employment Exchanges are unable to sponsor suitable candidates within the prescribed time limits, the vacancies may be advertised in the press on a local/regional basis. Where adequate number of suitable candidates are not available against local/regional advertisement, the vacancies may be advertised on All India basis

later I filed a writ appeal with 2 mp tagged the appeal was dismissed on 21 June 2010 even though my representing consul inform the court that I was an trained apprentice of same PSU relaying on apex court judgment in U.P.S.R.T.C. Vs. U.P. Parivahan Nigam Shishukhs Berozgar Sangh [1995] INSC 42 (12 January 1995 for this a trained apprentice need not be sponsored from employment exchange and recruitment rule No. 10

The recruitment rule No. 10 says GROUP-�B� (Revised WG-2) :

All posts in Group-�B� (WG-2) in the trades not provided for in Group-�A� (WG-1) will be filled by direct recruitment. Departmental candidates who have the requisite qualifications can also be considered for promotion/appointment to such trades in Group-�B� (WG-2). All things being equal departmental candidates and Apprentices trained in the Company under National Apprentices Training Scheme should be given preference.

Mean time the PSU filled up the vacancies in Nov 2009 which is much before the final out come of the writ appeal for which I came know very recently

Now I want know weather can I file appeal in Supreme Court now after 3 years

On following counts

1) the PSU unilaterally filled the vacancy which was offered me when writ was pending without the permission of the court

2) The PSU was well aware of that my candidature was by court why did the PSU slept and offered me a appointment and later dined on pretext of rules, even though rule No. 10 say All things being equal departmental candidates and Apprentices trained in the Company under National Apprentices Training Scheme should be given preference.

3) Why was the PSU not questioned that the rules were made much earlier the interim order passed and the time interim why PSU has not objected

Does any one see a merit in my case?

All members are requested to suggest

1 Answer from Attorneys

Related Questions & Answers

More Labor and Employment Law questions and answers in India

Looking for something else?