Mr. T.S. Sivagnanam, J.

Since the relief sought for in all these writ petitions are identical, they were heard together and are disposed of by this common order. For the purpose of disposing the present batch of cases, W.P.No.1510 of 2016 is taken as a lead case.

2. The petitioners, who are 51 in number, have completed their Apprenticeship training in the respondent corporation viz. Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation, and they seek for a writ of declaration to declare the proceedings of the first respondent dated 10.12.2015 and notification dated 28.12.2015 requiring the petitioners, who worked as Apprentices in the first respondent, to undergo written examination as being illegal and to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to dispense with the written examination for the petitioners for the ensuing direct recruitments to the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical), Assistant Engineer (Mechanical) and Assistant Engineer (Civil) and also to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to formulate a scheme for absorbing the Ex-apprentices as per the amended provisions of Section 22(1) of the Apprentices Act, 1961 Act (herein after referred to as "the Act"). In this batch, one set of cases have been filed by Diploma Holders viz., W.P. Nos. 12702, 12705 and 12724 to 12727 of 2016 and the only distinction is that they are all Diploma Holders, whereas, the other writ petitioners are B.E. Engineering graduates.

3. The case of the petitioners is that under the provisions of the Act, every year Tangedco recruits Engineering Graduates/Diploma Holders as apprentices to undergo apprenticeship training for a period of one year and on successful completion of training, a certificate would be issued. The petitioners, on securing their Engineering Degree/Diploma enrolled their names with the Board of Apprenticeship Training, who in turn sponsored the name of the petitioners to the Tangedco for being trained as apprentices.

4. It is stated that the method of selection is by a Committee of three seniors officials of Tangedco, who verify the certificate of the petitioners/candidates, who have been sponsored by the Board of Apprenticeship Training and after taking oral interview, they are selected to undergo apprentices training. Thus the endeavour of the petitioner is to state that there is a process of selection of apprentices and it is not mechanically filled up based upon the list forwarded by the Board of Apprenticeship Training. It is submitted that Section 22 of the Act is very crucial, which had undergone an amendment in 2014, which was published in the Gazette of India dated 18.12.2014. According to the petitioners, prior to the amendment, the provision of Section 22 of the Act did not guarantee or provide for any right to the apprentices for securing employment in the relevant establishment. However, Tangedco was recruiting apprentices whenever vacancies arises in various posts notwithstanding the fact that there is no obligation under the Act whenever regular vacancies is notified for recruitments. It is further submitted that the Tangedco was following a pattern of calling for names in the ratio of 1:5 from Employment Exchange and separate notification will be issued to Ex-apprentices simultaneously. It is the submission that though there is no written policy for recruitment of Ex-apprentices in the 1st respondent establishment, the 1st respondent was giving preference for ex-apprentices when regular vacancies are filled up. The main grievance of the trained apprentice is that the Tangedco has taken a decision to conduct a written examination for recruitment by referring to and stating that it is in implementation of the judgment of the Honourable Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 1027 of 2013 dated 09.06.2014. The petitioners have no grievance in Tangedco adopting such procedure by calling for applications from the open market and to require those open market candidates to undergo written examination. But would state that such