- (1.) M. Katju, J. The petitioner claim ing to be an apprenticeship is claiming the benefit of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of U. P. State Road Transport Corporation (U. P. S. R. T. C) v. U. P Parivahan Nigam Shishukhs Berozgar Sangh and others, 1995 (2) SCC 1.
(2.) A large number of similar petitions have been filed in this Court claiming similar benefits in various departments of the State Government and the Public Sec tor Corporations. In writ petition No. 23076 of 1998 filed by Arvind Gautam, I passed an order dated 20-7-1998 referring the matter to a larger Bench of this Court for a decision whether the Supreme Court's verdict is confined to the U. P. State Road Transport Corporation or whether they are applicable to all the departments of the State Government and Corporations. Prima facie, I was of the view that if the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court is extended to all departments and all corporations there would be violation of Article 16 of the Constitution because candidates high ly qualified and meritorious may not be able to get appointments because of mis interpretation of the judgment of the Supreme Court and instead candidates inferior in merit or inferior in qualifica tion may get appointment merely because they have some how managed to get an apprenticeship certificate from some authority in preference to superior can didates. In this petition also the benefit of apprenticeship has been claimed is on the basis of the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court.
(3.) CONNECT this petition also with Writ petition No. 23706 of 1998. Learned Standing Counsel may file counter-af fidavit within three weeks. In the meanwhile operation of the circular dated 4-9-1996 (Annexure 6 to the petition), circular dated 12-9-1996 (An nexure 6-A to the petition) and circular dated 3-1-1998 (Annexure 8 to the peti tion) shall remain stayed till the decision of the larger Bench. .;