Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Heard Sri Radhey Shyam, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No. 2.

2. The petitioner has sought a mandamus for absorption on the post of clerk in Nagar Mahapalika, Allahabad on the ground that he got apprenticeship training of clerk under the Apprenticeship Act, 1961 and has successfully completed the same. He further claimed that in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of UPSRTC Employees’ Federation v. UPSRTC, JT 1995 (2) SC 26 and the Government Order dated 12.9.1996 issued in pursuance thereto the petitioner is entitled for absorption on the post of clerk in the service of Nagar Mahapalika, Allahabad.

3. After hearing learned Counsel for the petitioner I do not find any force in the aforesaid submission. The issue as to whether an apprentice who has completed training is entitled for absorption merely on the ground of completion of training and the effect of the direction issued by the Apex Court in UPSRTC (supra) has been reconsidered by the Apex Court in U.P. Rajya Vidyut Parishad Apprenticeship Welfare Association and another v. State of U.P. and others, 2000(3) ESC 1798 (SC). The Hon’ble Court has held that an apprentice has to undergo the procedure of examination/interview and to compete with the open market candidates in a selection which is to be held in accordance with the rules. However, while appearing in the aforesaid selection the persons who have completed apprenticeship training may be entitied to the benefit laid down in conditions No. 1 to 4 in the Apex Court judgment in UPSRTC case (supra) which conditions are reproduced as under :

(i) Other things being equal, a trained apprentice should be given preference over direct recruits,

(ii) For this, a trainee would 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 227, would permit this.

(iii) If age 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 has undergone training would be given.

(iv) The concerned training institute would maintain a list of the persons trained year wise. The persons trained earlier would be treated senior to the persons trained later. In between the trained apprentice, preference shall be given to those who are senior.

4. This question again was considered by a Full Bench of this Court in Arvind Gautam v. State of U.P. and others, 1999( 2) ESC 1394. It was held that the apprentices are to go through the examination and also the interview and there is no automatic absorption in the vacancy to be filled by the direct appointment. The aforesaid view of the Full Bench has been affirmed by the Apex Court in U.P. Rajya Vidyut Parishad Apprenticeship Association (supra). Recently a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Bhoodev Singh v. U.P. State Electricity Board and others, 2006 (2) ADJ 500 (All) has held that the apprentice candidates cannot claim exemption from the procedure of recruitment and have right to preference if other thing being equal. They have to compete with all other candidates, in written examination as also the interview as provided in the recruitment Rules and after selection they may be entitled only for preference if other things being equal.

5. The Government Order relied by learned Counsel for the petitioner also does not provide for automatic absorption but it allows certain concession to the persons who have completed apprenticeship training while being considered for direct recruitment in the service of the State Government, namely relaxation in age, relaxation in requisition of names from the Employment Exchange and provide to preference to apprenticeship completed persons if all other things are equal The State Gover