ORDER

After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, we are of the view that the decision of this Court in Transport Corporation v. U.P. Parivahan Nigam Shikshak Berozgar Sangh1, has laid down clear criteria as to regular appointment of apprentices governed by the Apprentices Act, 1961. The relevant principles are as follows :

(i) Other things being equal, a trained apprentice should be given preference over direct recruits.

(ii) For this, a trainee would not be required to get his name sponsored by any employment exchange. The decision of this Court in Union of India v. Hargopal AIR 1987 227, would permit this.

(iii) If age bar would come in the way of the trainee, the same would be relaxed in accordance with what is stated in this regard, if any, in the concerned service rule. If the service rule be silent on this aspect, relaxation to the extent of the period for which the apprentice has undergone training would be given.

(iv) The concerned training institute would maintain a list of the person trained year wise. The persons trained earlier would be treated senior to the persons trained later. In between the trained apprentices