- (1.) HEARD Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Rohit Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Mahboob Ahmad, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 to 4.
(2.) THE petitioners are challenging the advertisement dated 6.9.2014 published for the post of Technician Gr. II(Trainee). Submission is that pursuant to the judgment of Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 764 of 1993 U.P. State Electricity Board and others vs. Hari Om Sharma dated 12.1.1995 certain benefits/relaxations were required to be given to trained apprentices while making selection/appointment on the post of Technician by the respondents. The relaxations as directed by the Apex Court have not been included in the advertisement issued for the post of Technician Gr. II, Electrical. The directions given by the Apex Court in the above Civil Appeal are as follows: - "...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 things being equal, a trained apprentice should be given preference over a 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, 1987 AIR(SC) 1227, would permit this. (3) If age bar would come in the way of the trainee, the name 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 apprentice had under gone training would be given. (4) The concerned training institute would maintain a list of 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. In so far as the cases at hand are concerned, we find that the corporation filed an additional affidavit in C.A. No. 4347 -4354 of 1990 (as desired by the Court) on 20th October, 1992 giving position regarding vacancies in the post of conductors and clerks. If such posts be still vacant, we direct to the Corporation to act in accordance with what has been stated above regarding the entitlement of 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 sponsored by the employment exchange shall be relaxed as indicated above. The appeals/Special Leave Petitions are disposed of with the aforesaid directions and observations by modifying the impugned judgments accordingly."
(3.) SUBMISSION of learned Senior Counsel is that as per the direction of the Apex Court, the trained apprentices are not required to appear in the written examination as the said requirement in the rules has been relaxed/dispensed with. In view thereof, the respondents are under obligation to appoint the petitioners on the post of Technician Gr. II without forcing them to appear in the written examination. It is apparent from the directions dated 12.1.1995 given by the Supreme Court that the respondents have been directed to give preference to trained apprentice over direct recruits in case, both are found equal in merit. Further, direction was that while considering the cases of the trainees for giving employment in suitable posts, the procedure 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 provided that before considering the cases of the trainees, the requirement of their names being sponsored by the employment exchange would not be insisted upon.;