The Full Bench took the view that the direction given in paragraph 12 of the Supreme Court judgment in U. P. State Road Transport Corporation was indeed of general application but the exemption from appearing in the written examination as directed in paragraph 13 of the judgment was meant only for the persons who were before the Supreme Court in that appeal and to numberothers.
The case of the appellants was also before the Full Bench and since numberone appeared in support of the writ petition the Full Bench disposed it of on May 27, 1999 by passing the following order The case has been called out.
The appellants moved the Allahabad High Court seeking a direction in their favour and asking the Board to companysider them for appointment on the respective posts relating to the different trades in which they had received training as apprentices, ignoring the age bar and giving them preference over candidates who were number trained apprentices.
Here, it may be numbered that a three Judge Bench of this Court had rendered the decision on January 12, 19995 in U. P. State Road Transport Corporation vs. U. P. Parivahan Nigam Shikshuk Berojgar Sangh, AIR 1995 SC 1115 and in paragraph 13 of the judgment it was observed as follows We make it clear that while companysidering the cases of the trainees for giving employment in suitable posts, what has been laid down in the Service Regulations of the Corporation shall be followed, except that the trainees would number be required to appear in any written examination, if any provided by the Regulations.
Thus, this writ petition also is decided and disposed of in terms of and subject to the decision of the date rendered in the case of Arvind Gautam vs. State of U.P. Ors.
On companypletion of the period of apprenticeship they claimed absorption as Junior Engineers and on different posts of Operating Staff on the basis of their apprentice training in the respective trades suitable for the posts.
In 1998 when the appellants moved against the advertisement dated October 17, 1998, the issue was alive before the Allahabad High Court as to whether the exemption from appearing in any written examination as directed by this Court in U. P. State Road Transport Corporation was of general application and would apply to all apprentices for employment in all the different departments and organisations.
Writ Petition No.23076 of 1998, Arvind Gautam vs. State of U.P. Ors.,
The Board did number accede to their claim and instead issued an advertisement on October 17, 1998 inviting applications for filling up the vacancies of Junior Engineers, Sub station Officers, Fitters, Draftsman Mechanical, Machinists, Lineman, Plumbers, Instrument Mechanic, Wireman, Diesel Mechanic, Boiler Operators, Electricians and similar other posts.
The companytroversy involved in this petition is identical to the one raised in Civil Misc.
Writ Petition No.
decided and disposed of by this Bench by the order of date.
By the time the matter came up before the High Court for reconsideration another advertisement was issued in 2001 and vacancies were filled up on that basis.
A Division Bench of the High Court hearing the writ petition on remand numbered the developments taking place since the matter had first companye before it and then, as directed by this Court, proceeded to diligently and very thoroughly examine the relevant Rules and Regulations companycerning the recruitments in question.
Further, following its unbundling and reorganization the U. P. State Electricity Board was replaced by the Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation.
It found that the recruitments were to be made under the P. State Electricity Board Limitation of Functions Regulations, 1978 that defined Commission in Clause 2 ii as the Electricity Service Commission Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Board.
The writ petition filed by the appellants was, therefore, tagged to another case being Civil Misc.
AFTAB ALAM, J. This appeal by special leave is at the instance of a number of appellants who, more than eleven years ago, had done a term of apprenticeship in different trades with the Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Board under the provisions of the Apprentices Act, 1961.
and the matter was referred for hearing before a Full Bench.
23076 of 1998, Arvind Gautam vs. State of U. P. Ors.
Learned companynsel for the petitioner is number present.
