IMPORTANT POINT
When recruitment rules mandatorily require examination and interview before selection nobody, including apprentices, shall be exempted from examination.

Judgment :

AFTAB ALAM, J.

1.1. This appeal by special leave is at the instance of a number of appellants who, more than eleven years ago, had done a term of apprenticeship in different trades with the Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Board under the provisions of the Apprentices Act, 1961. On completion of the period of apprenticeship they claimed absorption as Junior Engineers and on different posts of Operating Staff on the basis of their apprentice training in the respective trades suitable for the posts. The Board did not accede to their claim and instead issued an advertisement on October 17, 1998 inviting applications for filling-up the vacancies of Junior Engineers, Sub-station Officers, Fitters, Draftsman Mechanical, Machinists, Lineman, Plumbers, Instrument Mechanic, Wireman, Diesel Mechanic, Boiler Operators, Electricians and similar other posts. The appellants moved the Allahabad High Court seeking a direction in their favour and asking the Board to consider them for appointment on the respective posts relating to the different trades in which they had received training as apprentices, ignoring the age bar and giving them preference over candidates who were not trained apprentices.

2. Here, it may be noted that a three-Judge Bench of this Court had rendered the decision on January 12, 19995 in U. P. State Road Transport Corporation vs. U. P. Parivahan Nigam Shikshuk Berojgar Sangh, AIR 1995 SC 1115 and in paragraph 13 of the judgment it was observed as follows:

"We make it clear that while considering the cases of the trainees for giving employment in suitable posts, what has been laid down in the Service Regulations of the Corporation shall be followed, except that the trainees would not be required to appear in any written examination, if any provided by the Regulations."

2.3. In 1998 when the appellants moved against the advertisement dated October 17, 1998, the issue was alive before the Allahabad High Court as to whether the exemption from appearing in any written examination as directed by this Court in U. P. State Road Transport Corporation was of general application and would apply to all apprentices for employment in all the different departments and organizations. The writ petition filed by the appellants was, therefore, tagged to another case being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 23076 of 1998, Arvind Gautam vs. State of U. P. & Ors. and the matter was referred for hearing before a Full Bench. The Full Bench took the view that the direction given in paragraph 12 of the Supreme Court judgment in U. P. State Road Transport Corporation was indeed of general application but the exemption from appearing in the written examination as directed in paragraph 13 of the judgment was meant only for the persons who were before the Supreme Court in that appeal and to no others. The case of the appellants was also before the Full Bench and since no one appeared in support of the writ petition the Full Bench disposed it of on May 27, 1999 by passing the following order:

"The case has been called out.

Learned counsel for the petitioner is not present.

The controversy involved in this petition is identical to the one raised in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.23076 of 1998, Arvind Gautam vs. State of U.P. & Ors., decided and disposed of by this Bench by the order of date.

Thus, this writ petition also is decided and disposed of in terms of and subject to the decision of the date rendered in the case of Arvind Gautam vs. State of U.P. & Ors. (Supra)."

4. The appellants then came before this Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 1838-1839 of 2001. In those appeals a three-Judge Bench of the Court upheld the Full Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court in Arvind Gautam and agreed that the exemption from appearing in the written examination allowed by the decision in U. P. State Road Transport Corporation was only for the respondents in that case. The Court further held that the question whether or not the apprentices were required to ap