The Supreme Court's decision in U. P. State Road Transport Corporation v. U. P. Parivahan Nigam Shishuksh Berozgar Sangh, which exempted apprentices from appearing in written examinations, was specific to the facts and circumstances of that case and could not be applied generally to other organizations.

( 1 ) MR. S. S. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that since the petitioner had been an apprentice in U. P. State Electricity Board sometimes in 1988- 89 for the full term and was granted a successful apprenticeship completion certificate, he is eligible and entitled to be considered for being appointed in the post, in which he had obtained training through apprenticeship, without being required to be sponsored through employment exchange and without being required to appear in the examination or selection test for such recruitment together with relaxation of age. In the proposed selection advertised by the Electricity Service commission. U. P. State Electricity Board, no provision has been made for the petitioner. On the other hand, in terms of the said advertisement, the petitioner was also required to undergo the process of selection text. In support of his contention. Mr. Tripathi had relied on the decision in the case of U. P. State Road Transport Corporation and another v. U. P. Parivahan Nigam shishukhs Berozgar Sangh and others, AIR 1995 SC 1115. Mr. Tripathi submits that in the said judgment In paragraph 13 thereof, ft was pointed out that such trainees would not be required to appear in the written examination even if provided in the regulations and that they need not be sponsored by the employment exchange and that their age is liable to be relaxed. He had also relied on paragraph 3 of the said judgment to contend that the Apprentice Act has provided for specific provisions tn order to increase employment potential of the candidates by imparting vocational training to them. If a particular training is given to a candidate, in that event, the same should not be allowed to be wasted and the money spent thereon should be well utilised by giving such trainees employment in preference to others.

( 2 ) MR. S. P. Mehrotra, learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand, contends that in paragraph 12 of the decision in the case of U. P. State Road Transport Corporation (supra), principles have been laid down, which are silent about the question of exemption from appearing in the written examination. While referring to paragraph 13 of the said judgment, Mr. Mehrotra points out to the expression used therein and submits that the said observation was made in respect of the cases at hand, with which the Apex Court was concerned at that point of time. It was in fact an exception permitted in view of peculiar facts and circumstances of the said case, on the basis whereof the said decision was rendered. The observation made in paragraph 13 of the Judgment cannot have general application in respect of other organisations. According to him. the expression corporation used in the said judgment, had referred to U. P. State Road transport Corporation as has been Indicated in paragraph 2 of the said judgment. He then contends that this decision on earlier occasion came up for Interpretation by this Court in the case of Manoj Kumar Mishra u. State of U. P. and others, 1997 (2) AWC 654, in the Lucknow bench, in which the very contention which is being advanced by Mr. Mehrotra in the present case. according to him, has since been upheld. He relied on the observations made in paragraph 6 of the said judgment to support his contention. He further relies upon an unreported decision in the case of Ajai Kumar Pandey u. State of U. P. and others. Writ Petition No. 1296 of 1996, disposed of on 18. 12. 1996 by a Division Bench of this Court which had also noted the decision in the case of U. P. State Road Transport Corporation (supra ). According to Mr. Mehrotra. the decision in the case of Ajay Kumar Mishra (supra), also supports his contention which he points out from the penultimate paragraph of the said judgment. He had also relied on relevant regulations providing for such recruitment which will be referred to hereinafter.

( 3 ) I have heard both Mr. Tripathi and Mr. Mehrotra, learned counsel for resp