1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 4010 OF 1997 1. Sanjay Bhagwant Shirsath Age : Major, Occ. R/o : Kolhar(, Kd ), Tq. Rahuri, Dist. Ahmednagar. 2. Dhananjay Rangnath Gadhe Age : 58 Yrs., Occ. Nil, R/o : Kolhar(, Kd ), Tq. Rahuri, Dist. Ahmednagar. 3. Sanjay Madhav Gholap Age : 55 Yrs., Occ. Nil, R/o : Ashvi (Bk.), Tq. Sangamner, Dist. Ahmednagar. .... PETITIONERS V E R S U S 1. The State of Maharashtra Through the Govt. Pleader, High Court of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad. 2. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Central Office, Maharashtra Vahatuk Bhavan, Dr. Anandrao Nair Marg, Mumbai – 8 Through its General Manager. 2 3. The Divisional Controller Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Ahmednagar, Dist. Ahmednagar. .... RESPONDENTS Mr. S.V.Suryawanshi, Advocate holding for Mr. P.B.Shirsath, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. K.G.Patil, Assistant Govt. Pleader for State. CORAM : B.R.GAVAI & S.V.GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE : 30/6/2010 ORAL JUDGMENT : [ PER – S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] 1. Vide the present petition, the petitioners seek writ of mandamus directing the respondents to fill in 50 % of the total vacant posts of helper in Divisional and Central Work shop of Maharashtra by appointing apprentices, who have completed training of one year with further direction that the respondent should absorb all the apprentices in the trade of Mechanic ( Motor vehicle ). 2. The petitioners claim that they have completed the course in Mechanic ( Motor vehicle ) i.e. I.T.I. of 2 years from the Govt. recognized Institution and apprenticeship with the M.S.R.T.C., Divisional work shop at 3 Ahmednagar. It is further contended by the petitioners that the respondent – Corporation had issued an advertisement for filling up posts of helpers, wherein 2 conditions were prescribed i.e. the candidate shall possess I.T.I. Course of 2 years completed from Govt. recognized Institution and that the candidates who have completed apprenticeship would be given preference. It is further case of the petitioners that the Corporation has published list of 174 candidates calling them for interview. The names of the petitioners did not appear in the same. The petitioners being aggrieved, have approached this Court. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in pursuance to the Govt. Resolution dated 15/12/1986, directions have been given to all public undertakings and Corporations that at least 50 % of the total posts shall be filled in by appointing candidates who had completed apprenticeship. It is their contention that the Corporation has flouted said directions of the Govt. by not filling 50 % posts of total vacancies by appointing the candidates who have completed apprenticeship. The learned counsel for the petitioner further relies on the Judgment of the Apex Court in case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and another V/s U.P. Parivahan Nigam Shishukhs Berozgar Sangh and others reported in AIR 1995 Supreme Court - 1115. 4 4. The respondent – Corporation has filed affidavit, wherein it has been stated that the Corporation has vide its Resolution dated 9/3/2006 resolved that those who have completed apprenticeship, they will not be absorbed in the services of the Corporation. However, whenever direct recruitment for the post of helper is undertaken, then those apprentices who have completed their engagement satisfactorily and fulfill the requisite conditions, will be allowed to apply directly. It was further resolved by them vide Resolution No. 96.06.04 dated 24/25th June, 1996 that preference would be given to the apprentices at the time of direct recruitment. It has been further stated in the affidavit that weightage of 10 % marks were given to such candidates. 5. The contents of affidavit in reply are not controverted by the petitioners by filing re-joinder. The contents of the said affidavit in reply shows that preference has been given to the apprentices by giving them 10 % more marks. Even the Apex Court in the Judgment of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation referred supra has held that the legitimate expectation of the candidates who have completed apprenticeship training can be met if preference is given to them over non-trained direct recruits. By giving 10 % more marks, the Corporation has kept in mind the legitimate expectations of the apprentices and the policy adopted by the Corporation confirms to the directions of the Apex Court in the Judgment 5 referred supra. 6. In light of the above, the petition being devoid of merits, is dismissed. Rule is discharged. However, there shall be no order as to costs. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA ] [ B.R. GAVAI ] JUDGE JUDGE knp/WP 4010.97