R.A. Sharma, J. - (1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent. Since the matter is covered by a decision of this Court rendered in Ajai Kumar Naik v. Chairman, U.P.S.R.T.C. Lucknow it is finally heard with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THIS writ petition is accordingly allowed for the reasons assigned in Writ Petition No. 4834 of 1991, decided on 3rd May, 1991. The respondent is directed to consider the case of the petitioner for absorption on the post of clerk in case he has attained proficiency and qualifications in accordance with the provisions of the Apprentices Act, 1961. The petitioner would be entitled for consideration for the post provided he has attained necessary qualification. It is however, made clear that the absorption of the petitioner will be subject to the availability of post. It is expected that the absorption of the petitioner shall be made on the basis of seniority. It will be open to the respondent to admit the candidate for training in future strictly in accordance with the regulations and to adopt the procedure of their recruitment. It is also made clear that the respondent, shall consider the case of the petitioner for absorption on the available vacancies before regular appointments are made in accordance with the regulations. The respondent will carry out the direction, if possible within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. Sri S.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the Corporation has further argued that although, following the leading judgment of this Court, large number of writ petitions involving the same questions, which are involved in this writ petition have been allowed by this Court and against some of those decisions Special leave Petitions were filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which were dismissed; but in S.L.P. No. 3134 of 1991 filed against one of such decisions given by this Court following the leading judgment, Hon'ble Supreme Court has granted stay order on 3 -3 -1991. It is further stated that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has confirmed that stay order on 6 -5 -1991. On this basis it has been argued by Sri Sharma that the decisions already given by this Court including the leading judgment should not be followed in this case, It is not possible to agree with the learned counsel. When this Court has following its leading judgment allowed large number of writ petitions, against which Special Leave Petitions have been dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is desirable that the same order should be passed in this case also. As mentioned above, the writ petition is allowed with the direction contained hereinabove. There shall be no order as to costs.;