G.P.Mathur, J. - (1.) Having failed before the learned single Judge to get any relief in the writ petition filed by them, the appellants have preferred the present special appeal.
(2.) According to the case set up in the writ petition, the appellant Nos. 1 to 27 completed their apprenticeship training of lineman while appellant Nos. 28 to 50 completed their apprenticeship training as sub-station operator. In January 1999. an advertisement was issued by the U. P. State Electricity Board (for short, the UPSEB) inviting applications for the post of lineman. sub-station operator (technical grade-II) and labour. The advertisement (Annexure-110 to the writ petition) laid down that the applicants should be registered with employment exchange and. for the purpose of selection, a written examination will be held. The appellants claim that in pursuance to the advertisement, they made applications for the posts in question. The main grievance of the appellants is that having undergone apprenticeship training, the requirement regarding registration with employment exchange and competing in the written test ought not to have been there. The principal relief claimed in the writ petition was that a writ of mandamus be issued directing the respondents to consider the case of the writ petitioners on preferential basis for appointment on the post of lineman/sub-station operator/labour on the basis of their apprenticeship training given to them by the UPSEB without compelling them to either get their names registered in the employment exchange or to appear in the written examination.
(3.) The learned single Judge did not accept the plea of the appellants that they are not required to be registered with the employment exchange or to appear in the written examination which is to be held by the UPSEB for the purpose of making the selection. He directed the respondents to follow the principle laid down in C.M. Writ Petition No. 3177 of 1999 (Askand Kumar Srivastava v. State of U. P.), decided on 4.2.1999.;