THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA W.P.No. 10564 of 2005 DATE: 08-11-2006 Between: N. Khaleel Basha ..Petitioner. And The vice Chairman & Managing Director, A.P.S.R.T.C., Musheerabad, Hyderabad and another. ..Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA W.P.No. 10564 of 2005 O R D E R: This writ petition is filed to direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment to any technical post along with other similarly situated persons. The petitioner possesses the qualification of Diploma in Automobile Engineering and also passed the Board of Intermediate examination. The petitioner was selected as Technician Apprentice (Diploma Holder) in the year 2003-04 and completed his apprenticeship with effect from 24-09-2003 to 23-09-2004 in respondents-Corporation at Adoni under the Apprentice Ship Act, 1961. On successful completion of the training, the petitioner was awarded provisional certificate and provisional national apprenticeship certificates. The petitioner states that the respondents are in the process of issuing notification for appointment under direct recruitment to the technically qualified posts and since he has completed apprenticeship in the respondents Corporation, he contends that he should be given preference over other candidates, as it is an additional qualification to him. The petitioner relied on the judgment of Apex Court in U.P.S.R.T.C. v. U.P. Parrivhat N.S.B. Sangh 1. In the counter affidavit, the respondents submitted that as per the Circular dated 16-11-1990, every year five-technician apprentices (two Diploma in Automobile Engineer and three Diploma Mechanical Engineer) would be trained in Kadapa zone by paying stipends at the rate the Government of India prescribes. Like wise, for the year 2003- 04, the petitioner was one among the five candidates engaged as Technician Apprentices. The petitioner underwent apprenticeship training at Adoni with a stipend of Rs.1400-00 per month. In the engagement order, at item No.6, it was specifically stated that “the organization does not take any responsibility for providing job at the end of their training. The liability of Corporation ceases after providing Apprenticeship Training’. It is further averred that the petitioner is not entitled for any preference over other candidates and he can be given preference, if other things are equal. The allegation that the Corporation is issuing notification is denied. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondents and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with the following direction: Since the petitioner completed apprentice with the respondents, they shall consider the case of the petitioner for giving preference, whenever notification for recruitment is issued, if the qualifications possessed by him are equal to that of other general candidates. With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. ________________ N.V. RAMANA, J Dated: 08 -11-2006 PVKS/* 1 AIR 1995 (1) SC 1115