IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No.1251 (S/S) of 2005 Smt. Anita Devi W/o Shri Madan Mohal Lal . .……… Petitioner Versus Uttarakhand Road Transport Corporation and others ……… Respondents Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Heard Shri V.K. Kohli, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri I.P. Kohli, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri K.P. Upadhyaya, the learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 & 2, Shri N.P. Sah, the learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.3 and Shri Ramji Srivastava, the learned counsel for respondent Nos. 4 and 5. The present writ petition has been filed by an Apprentice Clerk praying for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to employ the petitioner on any post available at Dehradun in which she is found to be suitable preferably on the post of General Clerk in which she has held an apprentice certificate. The petitioner has further prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to issue any advertisement or to employ any General Clerk without first absorbing the petitioner. The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition is, that the petitioner was appointed as an Apprentice Clerk in the year 1986 under the Apprentice Act for a period of one year. It is alleged that the petitioner joined and completed her training and then demanded a regular appointment as a Clerk in the Corporation. The petitioner was not given a permanent appointment. The 2 petitioner filed writ petition before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in the year 1990 which was disposed of by an order dated 09/04/1993 directing the respondents to absorb the petitioner on a vacancy, if available, on the basis of seniority. The Corporation being aggrieved by the said order, filed a special leave petition before the Supreme Court of India which was disposed of by a judgment dated 12th January, 1995 by issuance of various directions. The Supreme Court directed that the claim of the apprentice trainee for employment after completion of training would be considered and would be given preferential treatment over the direct recruits if other things are equal and that a trainee would not be required to get his/her name sponsored from the employment exchange and would also be given a relaxation in age if the trainee was found to be overage. The present writ petition was filed in the year 2005 alleging that inspite of the direction of the High Court at Allahabad as modified by the order of the Supreme Court, the petitioner has not been given appointment inspite of the fact that there are large number of vacancies available in the Corporation. In paragraph 12 of the writ petition, it has been alleged that 175 vacancies are in existence. It was also alleged that the petitioner made a representation dated 18/05/2005 which was not considered and has remained pending. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the relief claimed by the petitioner is devoid of merit and cannot be granted. The Supreme Court did not give any indefeasible right to the petitioner for appointment in the regular service of the Corporation. The Supreme Court only directed that the claim of the petitioner as an apprentice would be 3 considered and would be given preferential treatment over the direct recruits if all other things are equal and that the petitioner would not be allowed to get her name sponsored from the employment exchange and in the event he/she was found to be overage, her age would be relaxed by the Corporation while considering her for the post in question. There is no allegation in the writ petition that vacancies have been filled up by the Corporation and the claim of the petitioner was not considered. There is also no allegation that an advertisement has been issued and the petitioner was denied a chance to apply for any post in question. In fact, the petitioner has come out with a case that 175 vacancies are available in the Corporation in which the petitioner could be absorbed. As stated earlier, the petitioner does not get any indefeasible right through the judgment of the Supreme Court for an automatic appointment. The petitioner’s claim can only be considered as and when vacancies are advertised and application are invited in which the petitioner can apply. Whenever the petitioner applies pursuant to the advertisement, the same would be considered by the authority. At the present moment, the Court does not find any ground to issue a mandamus. The writ petition consequently fails and is dismissed. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) Dated 09.02.2010 Shiv