MOTILAL B. NAIK, J.

( 1 ) PETITIONER is a B. Tech (Mechanical) Engineering graduate. He was taken as Apprentice Trainee in the respondent-Board on 8-4-1993 for a period of one year. He had undergone the apprentice training and obtained necessary certificate to the effect from the competent authority.

( 2 ) WHILE so, the respondent-Board on 1-1-1997 notified 17 vacancies of Assistant Engineers (Mechanical) inviting applications from eligible candidates. Petitioner having successfully completed the apprentice training for one year has also responded to the notification and applied for the said post. The respondent-Board had conducted written test followed by oral interview for the above posts. Petitioner states that though he appeared for the written, he was not called for oral interview and therefore, he approached this Court through the present writ petition seeking mandamus directing the respondent-Board to immediately appoint him as Assistant Engineer (Mechanical) in one of the existing vacancies.

( 3 ) DURING the course of hearing of the writ petition, WPMP No. 23107 of 1997 was filed by the petitioner seeking amendment of the prayer in the writ petition and the said application has since been ordered after hearing the Counsel for both the parties.

( 4 ) WHILE admitting the writ petition in WPMP No. 11005 of 1997 by an order dated 29-4-1997 interim direction was issued to the respondent-Board to give preference to the petitioner at the time of recruitment keeping in view the decision of the Supreme Court in U. P. State Road Transport Corporation v. U. P. Parivahan Nigam Shishukhs Berozgar Sangh, (1995) 2 SCC 1 = 1995 (3) ALT 13 (DN ).

( 5 ) THE main grievances of the petitioner seem to be that having been undergone apprentice training in the respondent-Board for a period of one year, the respondent-Board ought not to have subjected the petitioner to written test as well as oral interview along with others in the recruitmental process pursuant to notification dated 1-1-1997.

( 6 ) PETITIONER places strong reliance on U. P. State Road Transport Corporation case (supra) and contends that the supreme Court has held that keeping in view the apprentice training undergone by the qualified unemployed in respective Boards or Corporations, such persons who have under gone apprentice training need not be subjected to written test and oral interview. Petitioner therefore contends that he be immediately appointed as Assistant Engineer (Mechanical) in any one of the existing vacancies in terms of the said decision of the Supreme Court.

( 7 ) IN the counter filed by the respondent-Board, it is admitted that the petitioner has undergone apprentice training and has also obtained a certificate to the effect. However, it is contended on behalf of the respondent-Board that as per Regulation 1 of APSEB Service Regulations Part-II, the petitioner is also subjected to written test and oral interview. It is further urged in the counter that in terms of the decision of the Supreme Court referred to above when all other factors being equal, petitioner could be given preference over other candidates.

( 8 ) IT is therefore, in this background, and important question of law arises for consideration before this Court as to whether the candidates who have undergone apprentice training in a particular unit, Corporation or undertaking can be subjected to written test and oral interview for recruitment or they can be appointed straightaway only on the basis of the apprentice training?

( 9 ) SRI Surender Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner has taken me to the provisions of the Apprentices Act, 1961 particularly with reference to provisions under Sections 9, 19, 21 and 22 and the relevant rules under 6-B, 8 (3) and 10 (3) and (7) of the Apprenticeship Rules. Learned Counsel has also taken me to the decision of the Supreme Court in U. P. State Road Transport Corporation case (supra ). While referring in paragraph 13 of the said decision, learned Counsel stat

Click Here to Read the rest of this document