The legal point established is that completion of apprenticeship training does not exempt individuals from the requirement to register with the employment exchange or appear in a competitive test for appointment.

( 1 ) HAVING failed before the learned single Judge to get any relief in the writ petition filed by them, the appellants have preferred the present special appeal.

( 2 ) ACCORDING to the case set up in the writ petition, the appellant Nos. 1 to 27 completed their apprenticeship training of lineman while appellant Nos. 28 to 50 completed their apprenticeship training as sub-station operator. In January 1999. an advertisement was issued by the U. P. State electricity Board (for short, the UPSEB) inviting applications for the post of lineman. sub-station operator (technical grade-II) and labour. The advertisement (Annexure-110 to the writ petition) laid down that the applicants should be registered with employment exchange and. for the purpose of selection, a written examination will be held. The appellants claim that in pursuance to the advertisement, they made applications for the posts in question. The main grievance of the appellants is that having undergone apprenticeship training, the requirement regarding registration with employment exchange and competing in the written test ought not to have been there. The principal relief claimed in the writ petition was that a writ of mandamus be issued directing the respondents to consider the case of the writ petitioners on preferential basis for appointment on the post of lineman/sub-station operator/labour on the basis of their apprenticeship training given to them by the UPSEB without compelling them to either get their names registered in the employment exchange or to appear in the written examination.

( 3 ) THE learned single Judge did not accept the plea of the appellants that they are not required to be registered with the employment exchange or to appear in the written examination which is to be held by the UPSEB for the purpose of making the selection. He directed the respondents to follow the principle laid down in C. M. Writ Petition No. 3177 of 1999 (Askand Kumar srivastava v. State of U. P.), decided on 4. 2. 1999.

( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the Apex Court in U. P. State Road transport Corporation and others v. U. P. Parivahan Nigam Shishkukhs Berojgar Sangh and others, JT 1995 (2) SC 26, issued directions with regard to the appointment of trained apprentices which laid down that a trained apprentice would not be required to get his name sponsored by any employment exchange and that he would not be required to appear in any competitive test and, therefore, the advertisement issued by the respondents, which provided for sponsoring of the name by an employment exchange and holding of a competitive test, is illegal. In order to appreciate the contention raised, it is necessary to reproduce the directions issued in the aforesaid case, and they are as follows :

" (1) Other things being equal, a trained apprentice should be given preference over direct recruits. (2) 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 SC 1227. would permit this. (3) If any 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 had undergone training would be given. (4) The concerned training institute would maintain a list of the persons trained yearwise. The persons trained earlier would be treated as senior to the persons trained later. In between the trained apprentices preference shall be given to those who are senior. "

( 5 ) THE aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court came up for consideration before one of us (G. P. Mathur, J.) in Manoj Kumar Misra v. State of U. P. and others, 1997 12) AWC 654. and it was held as follows :

"the claim of the petitioners that they are not required to appear in any competitive examination