Case Note & Summary
The case involved an appeal by the Chairman and Managing Director of Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. against a judgment of the Orissa High Court regarding the appointment of a welder. The respondent, Sadashib Behera, had completed his apprenticeship training and sought a writ of mandamus for appointment as a welder, claiming that vacancies existed. The High Court had previously ordered the appellants to appoint him based on a misinterpretation of the number of sanctioned posts. The appellants contended that only seven posts were sanctioned, not nine as claimed, and that they were bound by the reservation policy. The Supreme Court found the High Court's direction unsustainable, emphasizing that the reservation policy must be adhered to and that the respondent had no legal right to employment as no condition in his apprenticeship contract mandated it. The appeal was allowed, and the High Court's orders were set aside, with no costs awarded.
Headnote
A) Employment Law - Reservation Policy - Validity of High Court's Direction - Constitution of India, Article 226 - The High Court's order to appoint a candidate from the general category to a reserved post was erroneous as it contravened the reservation policy enforced by the Government of India. The Supreme Court held that the appellants were bound by the reservation policy and could not appoint a general category candidate to a reserved post (Paras 5-5). B) Apprenticeship Law - Employment Entitlement - Apprenticeship Act, 1961, Section 22 - The court clarified that an apprentice does not have an automatic right to employment upon completion of training unless a specific condition exists in the apprenticeship contract. Since no such condition was present, the respondent could not claim a right to appointment (Paras 6-8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court's direction to appoint the respondent as a welder disregarded the sanctioned posts and reservation policy.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's orders dated 7.12.1999 and 21.11.2002, and ruled that the appellants were not obligated to appoint the respondent as there was no legal right to employment based on the apprenticeship training.
Law Points
- Reservation policy
- Apprenticeship rights
- Writ of mandamus
- Employment entitlement
- Review petition
