The Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.373 of 2009 Dated 27th June, 2011 Between: Akyana Purna Satish Kumar …Petitioner And The Principal/Convener, Govt.I.T.I.(Old), Visakhapatnam-7, and 2 others. …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Ms.K.V.Rajasree Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Employment and Training. The Court made the following: Order: At the interlocutory stage, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents, in rejecting the petitioner’s application for appearing for ITA Draughtsman (Civil) examination, despite his application has been recommended by his superior Officers, as arbitrary and illegal. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Employment and Training representing the respondents. The petitioner is working as Head Mazdoor in VRSHW Sub-division, Mamidipally Irrigation Division, Parvathipuram, Vizianagaram District. In pursuance of the notification issued for All India Trade Test (Supplementary), 2009, the petitioner submitted his application, by paying necessary fees, on 10-12-2008, to permit him to appear in the said test, scheduled to be commenced from 05-02-2009, as a private candidate in the trade of Draughts Man (Civil). According to the said notification, the candidates, who possess minimum experience of 5 years in the relevant trade, will be considered to appear for the trade test. It is the pleaded case of the petitioner that his application was forwarded by his superior Officers with positive recommendation, but however, he was not permitted to appear for the examination. Assailing this action, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition. This Court, while admitting the Writ Petition, by Order, dated 22-01-2009, granted interim direction to the respondents to permit the petitioner to appear for the examination subject to the condition that his result shall not be declared. This Court by a further interim Order, dated 27- 04-2010, dismissed the vacate stay application viz., WVMP.No.1592 of 2009, and passed a separate order, on the same day, in WPMP.No.18536 of 2009, directing the respondents to declare the petitioner’s result, which shall be subject to the result of the Writ Petition. In his affidavit, the petitioner stated that, in compliance with the direction of this Court, his results were declared, according to which he failed in two subjects viz., Trade theory and Workshop calculations and that the respondents have not been permitting him to appear for the examinations in the said two subjects. The petitioner filed WPMP.No.25500 of 2010 seeking a direction to the respondents to permit him to appear for those two subjects in the tests scheduled to be held in October, 2010 or any other subsequent date. In the counter-affidavit, filed by respondent No.1- Principal/Convener, Government I.T.I (Old), Visakhapatnam, it is inter alia stated that as per the notification issued by the Commissioner of Employment and Training, Andhra Pradesh, vide Memo No.I-1/20548/08, dated 01-11-2008, all the candidates, who inter alia possess minimum experience of five years in the relevant trade only, will be considered to appear for the trade test and that the experience should be on full time basis but not on part time basis. While admitting that the petitioner possessed the basic requisite qualification, it is stated that his work experience as Head Mazdoor is not sufficient to appear for the examination in view of Memo No.II/Exams/1845/2001, dated 02-03-2002. Having regard to the admission made by the respondents, if the petitioner possesses basic required qualification, he cannot be denied the opportunity of appearing in the test. The apparent reason for not permitting the petitioner to appear for the examination is the above-noted memo of the Director of Employment and Training wherein he purported to clarify that certain categories of workmen including Head Mazdoor do not come under technical category. I do not find any justification for the respondents to prevent the petitioner from appearing in the test only on the ground that he has put in the work experience with the designation of Head Mazdoor, even though he possesses the technical experience required for appearing in the All India Trade test. In this view of the matter, the Writ Petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to permit the petitioner to appear for the supplementary examinations, as and when they are scheduled to be held, if he applies for appearance in such examinations. As a sequel, W.P.M.P.Nos.437 and 18536 of 2009 are disposed of. ______________________ (C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) 27th June, 2011 lur