S.C. Verma, J. - (1.) In this bunch of writ petitions, the controversy involved has been settled by the Division Bench in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 863 of 1989, decided on 1th October, 1989, (Reported in (1990) 1 UPLBEC 326 (DB) (LB) by the Bench of Hon. U. C. Srivastava and Hon. S.H.A. Raza, JJ. The petitioners claimed their absorption on various posts having attained the necessary training imparted to them as apprentices in accordance with the Apprentices Act, 1961. In view of the aforesaid training imparted to them and the petitioners having successfully completed the apprentices training they claimed that they should be given preferential treatment in absorption on the various categories of posts for which they are eligible and available under the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation. The reasons stated on behalf of the Corporation for disallowing their claim appears to be the regulations framed under the U. P. Roadways Corporation Act which provides for qualifications both educational and experience as also age. The regulations also provided for the method of recruitment and as such the candidates could not be employed except in accordance with the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Employees (Other than Officers) Services Regulation.
(2.) The petitioners are those candidates who have been given apprenticeship training irrespective of the coming into force of the aforesaid regulation. It may be stated that the training to the Apprentices Act and the various circulars issued by the Government from time to time. There was no reservation or restrictions made at the time of the entry of these candidates for the aforesaid training. It is also borne out from the record that the Government has to bear substantial amount of expansion on the candidates who are imparted the aforesaid training.
(3.) There appears to be no justification to ignore these qualified hands in preference to the fresh recruited candidates. Under the circumstances the directions issued by the learned Judges in the aforesaid case reported in (1990) I UPLBEC 326 are required to be complied with. Learned counsel for the petitioners have also shown me copy of the order dated 3-2-1990, passed in Review Application No. 150 of 1989 in which the aforesaid directions were reiterated.;