(1) WP No.5946/2006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.5946 OF 2006 Vinod s/o Ajabrao Darokar ] R/o Ramdeo Ward, Arvi ] PETITIONER. Tq. And Dist. Thane. ] VERSUS Maharashtra State ] Electricity Board,Matunga, ] RESPONDENTS. Mumbai and another. ] ­­­­­ Mr.A.S.Golegaonkar, Advocate, holding for Mr.B.P.Ashtekar, Advocate for the petitioner Mr.S.M.Godsay, AGP, for respondents. ­­­­­ CORAM : Naresh H. Patil and N.D.Deshpande, JJ. DATE : 1st July, 2009. ORAL ORDER [ PER – NARESH H. PATIL, J.] 1] Heard. 2] Petitioner seek directions to respondents to appoint him as Line Helper pursuant to his selection made in the year 1999. (2) WP No.5946/2006 3] The learned counsel Shri.A.S.Golegaonkar, for the petitioner, submits that in the year 1999 petitioner was granted certificate of apprenticeship [Exhibit “D” to the petition]. He applied for the post of Line Helper. A select list was prepared by respondents and he was amongst 63 candidates selected. Some of them were appointed, but the petitioner was not appointed. During the relevant period there was ban for recruitment till 2003. After release of ban, petitioner made a representation to consider him for appointment, but the same was not considered and the authorities of the Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company (for short ”the Company”) issued an advertisement for recruitment of Trainees. The petitioner’s insistence is that in view of the fact that he belongs to Special Backward Category and was selected in the year 1999 against an advertisement issued for recruitment, he shall be appointed now. 4] The learned counsel Shri.Godsay, appearing for respondents, brought to our notice clause 4 of the Main Provisions of the Apprenticeship Rules Relating to the Contract of Apprenticeship Training, which reads thus: “4. It shall not be obligatory on the part (3) WP No.5946/2006 of employer to offer any employment to the passed out trade Apprentice on completion of period of Apprenticeship Training in his establishment, nor shall it be obligatory on the part of Apprentice to accept an employment under the employer.” 5] The counsel Shri.Godsay submits that the certificate of apprenticeship is valid for a period of three years from the date of Trade Test. The select list was prepared in the year 1999. Thereafter, there was ban for recruitment till 2003. 10 years are already over and the petitioner, if desirous, can apply in response to fresh advertisement issued by Company. 6] We have perused the documents and considered the submissions advanced. We find that the petition was filed in the Court at a belated stage in the year 2006. The petitioner’s insistence is that for his selection made in the year 1999 the Court shall order the respondents to appoint him in the year 2009 as an Apprentice. Considering the documents placed on record and submissions advanced, we are not inclined to issue such directions in exercise of extra ordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. There is no merit in the petition and the same deserves to be dismissed. (4) WP No.5946/2006 7] Petition stands dismissed. [ N.D.Deshpande,J.] [ Naresh H. Patil,J.] pcr/o/wp5946.06