Court No.2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/S) No. 40 of 2005 Zamir Alam and others .......... Petitioners Versus Uttaranchal Power Corporation Limited, Urja Bhawan, Kanwali Road, Dehradun through its Chairman and others. ........... Respondents ...................... Sri T.A. Khan, learned counsel for the petitioners. Sri B.D. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the respondent No.1. Sri Vikas Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2. Date: August 26, 2008. Hon’ble P.C. Verma, J. By means of this petition the petitioners have prayed for quashing of advertisement dated 24.12.2004, issued by the respondent Nos. 1 & 2, contained in Annexure No.5 to the writ petition. Further, writ of mandamus has also been sought by the petitioners to command the respondents to select the petitioners directly without any competitive examinations though the respondents may adopt the selection process among the candidates having completed their apprentice under the control of the respondent No.3. 2. The petitioners are diploma certificate holders obtained in different branches of Engineering from the Board of Technical Education, Lucknow. They have completed their apprenticeship training under the control of the respondent No.3 and they were issued the certificate of apprenticeship on respective dates by the competent authority. The respondent No.1 has issued an advertisement in Daily Danik Jagran dated 24.12.2004 inviting applications for the appointment as Junior Engineers (Trainees) from the candidates who have qualified the examination from the Board of Technical Education of the State/Central Government and it was required that the candidates who have obtained 55% marks will be eligible for a competitive examination of 100 marks out of which 88% marks will be for written examination and 12% marks will be for interview. It is alleged by the petitioners that the aforesaid advertisement issued by the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 is against the spirit of the Regulations of the respondent No.1 which were previously called as U.P. State Electricity Board, Subordinate Electrical and Mechanical Engineering Service Regulations, 1972. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that in Civil Appeal Nos. 1838-1853 of 2001, Bhoodev Singh and others versus Chairman, U.P.S.E.B. & Others decided on 14th March, 2001 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that no advertisement could be issued for filling up the posts of Junior Engineers under the State Electricity Board directly and the petitioners are entitled for appointment without compelling them for any written examination or interview with the non-apprentice candidates. 4. In Bhoodev Singh’s case (supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- “...All these disputes stem from the 3-Judge Bench decision of this Court in the case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Anr. Vs. U.P. Parivahan Nigam Shishukhs Berozgar Sangh and Ors., reported in (1995) 2 SCC 1. There has been an elaborate discussion on different provisions of the Apprentices Act, 1961 and the object behind those provisions, and finally in paragraph 12 of the said judgment, the Court has culled out the relevant criteria, which should be borne in mind while dealing with the claim of trained apprentices to get any employment after successful completion of their training. In paragraph 13 of the said judgment, the Court has indicated as to what would be the mode for consideration in the cases in hand, and it is in that context the Court said that such apprentices would not be required to appear in the written examination.” 5. Para 12 & 13 of U.P.S.R.T.C. & Anr. Versus U.P. Parivahan Nigam’s judgment (supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down as under:- “12. In the background of what has been noted above, we state that the following would be kept in mind while dealing with the claim of trainees to get employment after successful completion of their training: (1) Other things being equal, a trained apprentice should be given a 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. N. Hargopal [(1987) 3 SCC, 308] would permit this. (3) 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 service rule concerned. 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 training institute concerned 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.” 13. Insofar as the cases at hand are concerned, we find that the Corporation filed an additional affidavit in CA Nos. 4347-4354 of 1990 (as desired by the Court) on 20.10.1992 giving position regarding vacancies in the posts of conductors and clerks. If such posts be still vacant, we direct the Corporation to act in accordance with what has been stated above regarding the entitlement of the trainees. We make it clear that while considering 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 not be required to appear in any written examination, if any provided by the Regulations. It is apparent that before considering the cases of the trainees, the requirement of their names being sponsored by the employment exchange would not be insisted upon. Insofar as the age requirement is concerned, the same shall be relaxed as indicated above.” 6. In view of the discussion made above, the writ petition is disposed of in the light of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in U.P.S.R.T.C. & Anr. Vs. U.P.Parivahan Nigam’s case (supra) and the case of the petitioners shall be considered by the respondents for appointment in the branch in which the petitioners have taken apprentice if the post of that branch is advertised. (P.C. Verma, J.) 26.08.2008 P.Singh