1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4877 OF 2009 H.A.L. (Nashik Division) Apprentice Sangharsh Sanghatana, Nashik ..Petitioner versus Union of India & Anr. ..Respondents Mr. S. A. Sawant for Petitioner. Mr. Ashok R. Varma with Mr. Vinay Masurkar for Respondent No. 1 – UOI. Mr. A. M. Vernekar for Respondent No. 2. CORAM : D. D. SINHA & A. A. SAYED , JJ. DATED : JANUARY 20, 2010. P.C. : 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 2. The grievance of the petitioner was in respect of advertisement dated 23rd October 2008 issued by the respondent No. 2 whereby the recruitment process was initiated to fill up the various posts in the establishment of respondent No. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is a Union of Apprentices working with respondent No.2 2 establishment which is a Public Sector Undertaking. The members of the petitioner union joined as apprentices in various trades such as fitter, machinist, turner, sheet metal worker, fitter I.T.I., electrician etc. The members of the petitioner union had successfully completed the said apprenticeship course as per the provisions of Apprentices Act, 1961 in their respective trades. The duration of the training course was three years. The provisional National Apprenticeship Certificates were issued to them. 3. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that when the post became available in the respondent No. 2 establishment, these trainees who had completed the training successfully ought to have been given priority by respondent No. 2 while filling up this post as against the direct recruits. However, the impugned advertisement issued by the respondents being otherwise the petitioner had approached this Court challenging the validity thereof. In order to substantiate its contention, reliance was placed on the decision of the Supreme Court reported in 1995(2) SCC page 1 [U.P. State Road Transport Corporation & Anr. vs. U. P. Parivahan Nigam Shishukhs Berozgar Sangh & Ors.]. 4. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 has submitted that the petition in fact has become infructuous since the interviews pursuant to the advertisement dated 23rd October 2008 were already held and the 3 appointments are already made by respondent No.2 and therefore the cause of action in the petition does not survive. In the alternative, it is further contended that as per the law laid down by the Apex Court the procedure adopted by the respondent No.2 in the recruitment process is consistent with the same and therefore it is sustainable in law. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 has submitted that if the other things are equal the apprentices are given preference in selection over the other candidates. It is contended that specific statement is made in the affidavit filed by the respondent No.2 in this regard, which reads thus: “....However, from the recruitment year 2006-2007 onwards, based on guidelines issued by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, (Department of Personnel and Training), Government of India vide its O.M. No.14024/2/96-Estt.(D) dated 18.05.1998 (at Exhibit 1 hereto) in light of the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court of India in the matter of Excise Superintendent, Malkapatnam, Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh vs. K.B.N. Visweshrara Rao & Ors. on the subject matter of notification / advertisement of posts, these Respondents started notifying the vacancies in the workmen cadre in the newspapers having wider circulation and the applications sent by the candidates in response to the newspaper advertisement are considered and admit cards are sent to all the direct Applicants subject to meeting the eligibility criteria as well as meeting the cut off percentage of marks. Further, these Respondents also notify the vacancies to the Employment Exchange, Nasik for sponsoring the names of candidates in a ratio of 1:10 for written test / interview conducted for selection. In addition, these Respondents allow all those candidates who have completed their apprenticeship training in the 4 Establishment of these Respondents for appearing for the written test / interview. It is therefore incorrect to state that only the Candidates from the open markets are considered and no preferences are given to the Ex- Apprentices.” 5. In the back-drop of the above referred facts as well as in view of the statement made in the affidavit filed by the respondent No.2, it is evident that the apprentice who has completed training and who would be participating in the recruitment process along with others in future and other things being equal, respondent No.2 will give preference in selection to such apprentice as mentioned in the affidavit. 6. The counsel for the petitioner states that in view of this statement, the grievance of the petitioner stands redressed and therefore further deliberation and adjudication by this court in this regard is not necessary. Hence the writ petition is disposed of accordingly. (D. D. SINHA, J.) ( A. A. SAYED, J.)