1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 215 Of 2008(S/S) Dharmendra Singh Bisht and others ………… Petitioner Versus Uttarakhand Transport Corporation and another ………… Respondents Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Heard Mr. M.C.Pant, the leaned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. V.B.S.Negi, the learned counsel for the respondent nos.1and 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the apprentice trainees questioning the advertisement no.2/2008 dated 29th February,2008 published in Amar Ujala inviting applications for the post of Conductors in Uttarakhand Transport Corporation. The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition is, that the petitioners contend that they were appointed as apprentice trainees under the Apprentice Act in the erstwhile corporation, namely, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and underwent a training for the requisite period. The certificate of training was also given by the Corporation. It is alleged that U.P. Parivahan Nigam Shishukshs Berojgar Sangh filed a writ petition before the Allahabad High Court, which was disposed of with a direction that the apprentice trainees would be entitled for an employment in the corporation against which the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation preferred a special leave petition before the Supreme Court, 2 which was disposed of by a judgment in the case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and another Vs. U.P. Parivahan Nigam Shishukshs Berozgar Sangh and others reported in AIR 1995 S.C. 1115 with the following directions: “12. In the background of what has been noted above, we state that the following would be kept in mind while dealing with the claim of trainees to get employment after successful completion of their training: - 1. Other thing beings equal, a trained apprentice should be given preference over direct recruits. 2. For this, a trainee would not be required to get his name sponsored by any employment exchange. The decision of this Court in Union of India Vs. Hargopal, A.I.R. 1987 SC 1227, would permit this. 3. If age bar would come in the way of the trainee, the same would be relaxed in accordance with what is stated in this regard, if any, in the concerned service rule. If the service rule be silent on this aspect relaxation to the extent of the period for which the apprentice had undergone training would be given. 4. The concerned training institute would maintain a list of the persons trained year wise. The persons trained earlier would be treated as senior to the persons trained later. In between the trained apprentices, preference shall be given to those who are senior. 13. In so far as the cases at hand are concerned, we find that the Corporation filed an additional affidavit in C.A. Nos. 4347-4354 of 1990 (as desired by the Court) on 20th October, 1992 giving position regarding vacancies in the posts of conductors and 3 clerks. If such posts be still vacant, we direct the Corporation to act in accordance with what has been stated above regarding the entitlement of the trainees. We make it clear that while considering the cases of the trainees for giving employment in suitable posts, what has been laid down in the Service Regulations of the Corporation shall be followed, except that the trainees would not be required to appear in any written examination, if any provided by the Regulations. It is apparent that before considering the cases of the trainees, the requirement of their names being sponsored by the employment exchange would not be insisted upon. In so far as the age requirement is concerned, the same shall be relaxed as indicated above.” It transpires that the aforesaid direction was not complied with by the corporation, which led the Union to file a contempt application before the Supreme Court of India. The contempt application was entertained and notices were issued and eventually, upon a statement being made by the learned counsel for the corporation, the contempt application was disposed of with a direction that the appointments would be finalized by the end of July, 1998 and that the petitioners would also be considered. It transpires that based on the said direction of the Supreme Court in the contempt application, the petitioners were appointed on various dates on a contract basis on the post of Conductor and, since then, are working as Conductors on a contract basis. The State of Uttarakhand was formed on 9.11.2000 and the successor of the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation became the Uttarakhand State Road Transport Corporation on 27th October, 2003. The Uttarakhand State Road Transport Corporation issued an advertisement dated 29th February, 2008 inviting applications for various posts 4 including the post of Conductor. Various terms and conditions were mentioned in the advertisement. The petitioners submitted that they cannot apply for the post of Conductor as they have become overage etc. and consequently, filed the present writ petition questioning the said advertisement alleging that the terms and conditions mentioned in the advertisement for the post of Conductor has to be in consonance as given in paragraph no.12 and 13 of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and another Vs. U.P. Parivahan Nigam shishukshs Berozgar Sangh and others (supra). The main contention of the petitioners before this court is, that the advertisement directs the applicants to undergo a written test, whereas as per the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and another Vs. U.P. Parivahan Nigam shishukshs Berozgar Sangh and others(supra), the apprentice were exempted from giving the written test. The petitioners, therefore, contended that the impugned advertisement, insofar as, it relates to the holding of a written test and prescribing an age limit should be quashed and that the respondents should consider the case of the petitioner ignoring the written test and that the age limit should be relaxed. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, after inviting the attention of paragraph no.12 and 13 of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and another Vs. U.P. Parivahan Nigam shishukshs Berozgar Sangh and others(supra) appears to be attractive in the first blush but after hearing Sri V.B.S. Negi, the learned counsel for the respondents, the court finds that the submission raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is bereft of merit. Paragraph 5 nos.12 and 13 of the judgment of the Supreme Court was considered by a Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Manoj Kumar Mishra Vs. State of U.P. reported in (1997)2U.P.LBEC 1374,wherein it was held that the claim of apprentice trainees for exemption from competitive examination was found untenable. The learned Single Judge held that no such direction was given by the Supreme Court. Subsequently, the matter came up for consideration before the Full Bench in the case of Arvind Gautam Vs. State of U.P. and others reported in (1999)2 UPLBEC 1397. The Full Bench held in paragraph no.6 as under: “In our view the express “other things being equal” in paragraph 12 and absence of exemption from competitive test in the said paragraph, leads to the conclusion that all persons (including the apprentices) have to appear in the competitive test, as may be prescribed in respect of the particular selection, and if after the competitive test any apprentice trainee gets equal marks than a non- apprentice candidate, then only preference is to be given to the said apprentice trainee.” The Union against the said decision of the Full Bench preferred a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court which was dismissed by the Supreme Court in the case of U.P.Rajya Vidyut Parishad apprentice Welfare Association and another Vs. State of U.P. and others reported in (2000)5 S.C.C. 438 and the judgment of the Full Bench as well as the judgment in the case of Manoj Kumar Mishra Vs. State of U.P. (supra) was affirmed. In the light of the aforesaid, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the condition of giving a written test, as contemplated in the advertisement no.2/2008 dated 29th February, 2008, should be ignored is 6 untenable and cannot be sustained. As is clear from the Full Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court, the apprentice trainees are required to appear in the competitive test as prescribed by the respondents in the advertisement. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners on this aspect cannot be sustained. However, the court finds that other directions given by the Supreme Court as explained by the Full Bench and which was again affirmed by the Supreme Court are required to be followed by the Corporation. Consequently, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to proceed with the selection procedure in accordance with the terms and conditions laid down in the advertisement no.2/2008 dated 29th February, 2008 which would be subject to the directions contained by the Supreme Court in the case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and another Vs. U.P. Parivahan Nigam Shishukshs Berozgar Sangh and others reported in AIR 1995 S.C. 1115 constained in paragraph no.12 and 13 and as explained by the Full Bench in the case of Arvind Gautam Vs. State of U.P. and others reported in (1999)2 UPLBEC 1397, which was affirmed by the Supreme Court in the case of U.P.Rajya Vidyut Parishad apprentice Welfare Association and another Vs. State of U.P. and others reported in (2000)5 S.C.C. 438. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) Dated: 2.6.2010 Nishant