MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Anil Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No. 1 and Sri Sunil Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2.
(2.) BY means of the present writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to absorb/appoint the petitioners on the post of Conductor after entertaining their applications, in the light of Government Orders issued from time to time as well as by complying with the decision reported in 1995 (2) SCC 1 and the judgment and order dated 19.11.1998 of this Hon'ble Court passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 35745 of 1998 against the vacancies reserved for apprentices, as notified in the newspaper dated 03.10.2014, a copy whereby is contained in Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance to the order dated 19.11.1998 passed in Writ Petition No. 35745 of 1998 (Ravindra Tyagi and others Vs. The State of U.P. and others). The Hon'ble Court has considered the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court U.P.S.R.T.C. and another Vs. U.P. Parivahan Nigam Shishuksha Berozagar Sangh and others, 1995 2 JT 26. For ready reference, the relevant portion of the order dated 19.11.1998 is reproduced below. "......The petitioner is a trained apprentice. He claims that he is entitled to be considered for appointment on the basis of decision of the Apex Court U.P.S.R.T.C. and another Vs. U.P. Parivahan Nigam Shishuksha Berozagar Sangh and others, 1995 2 JT 26 in which it has been held that other things being equal, a trained apprentice should be given preference over direct recruits and for the purpose trainee would not required to let his name sponsored by any Employment Exchange. It has further been held that in case age bar operate as an obstacle in the way of the trainee, the same would be relaxed in accordance with what is provided in this regard in the concerned service rules and if the rules are silent on this aspect, the relaxation to the extent of the period for which the apprenticeship had undergone training, would be given. The persons trained earlier are to be given preference to those who have been trained later and for this purpose training institute would maintain a list of persons trained year -wise. In this view of the matter, no specific direction can be given in favour of an individual approaching the Court except that the case be considered in accordance with the above direction as and when occasion arises for appointment. The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions." In view of above, the decision aforesaid directly applies to the present case too.;