### Apprentices lack statutory right to automatic absorption or regular employment under Section 22 of the Apprentices Act.

The 71 petitioners were Engineering graduates appointed as Graduate Apprentice Trainees (GAT) by Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (HPCL) in 2016 for a one-year training period following an All-India Computer Based Test and interviews.

Upon completion of their training, the petitioners sought absorption into regular Grade “A” officer posts, alleging that they performed duties identical to regular officers.

They challenged their automatic termination and sought a direction for HPCL to frame a recruitment policy under Section 22(1) of the Apprentices Act, 1961.

HPCL subsequently framed a policy on June 1, 2018, providing age relaxation and 5% bonus marks in the GATE examination for ex-apprentices, but refused automatic absorption.

The court primarily applied Section 22 of the Apprentices Act, 1961, which requires employers to formulate their own policy for recruiting apprentices but stipulates in sub-section (2) that an obligation to offer employment only arises if specifically provided for in the apprenticeship contract.

The court also relied on Section 18, which clarifies that apprentices are "trainees" and not "workers".

It further applied constitutional principles from Articles 14 and 16 regarding public employment, emphasizing that regular recruitment must follow transparent, merit-based procedures and cannot be bypassed through "backdoor entries".

The Court reasoned that the Apprentices Act is intended for industrial training, not as a guarantee for employment.

Referring to the "General Conditions" of the recruitment advertisement and Schedule VI of the Apprenticeship Rules, the Court found that HPCL had explicitly stated there was no commitment to provide permanent employment.

The Court interpreted Section 22(1) as granting the employer the discretion to frame its own recruitment policy; it does not mandate automatic absorption even if vacancies exist.

Regarding the petitioners' claim that they were "meritorious," the Court held that the employer has the prerogative to set recruitment standards (such as the GATE exam) to attract the best talent.

The Court distinguished the petitioners' cited precedents, noting that in those cases, either the specific contract promised absorption or the administrative circulars created a different expectation not present here.

The Court upheld the HPCL policy dated June 1, 2018, as legally valid and not arbitrary.

The Court concluded that mandating absorption would facilitate illegal "backdoor entries" into public service, violating constitutional norms of open competition.

The petitioners are free to participate in HPCL’s regular selection processes as per the prevailing policy.