P.B.BAJANTHRI,J. - (1.) In the instant writ petition, petitioner has sought for the following relief :- " ii) issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari, Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring impugned action of respondents in not adhering to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Vs. U.P. Parivahan Nigam Shishukhs Berozgar Sangh and other AIR 1995 SC 1115 and own instructions in the matter of filling up various posts including the posts of Lineman, pursuant to advertisement no.2 of 2014 dated nil. (Annexure P-2) and further in allowing all the candidates to be treated at par with the petitioners, who have done apprentice- ship course from the respondent Board without disclosing what preference to be given to the petitioners as totally wrong, illegal, without 1 of 7 jurisdiction, in clear violation to the aforesaid decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court, subsequent decision of this Hon'ble Court and thus unconstitutional; and, to pass other appropriate orders or directions deemed proper in the facts and circumstances of this case."
(2.) The respondents have advertised for the post of Lineman in BBMB. The post of Lineman in BBMB is governed by Rules called BBMB Class III and Class IV Employees' (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Regulations, 1994. Method of recruitment to the post prescribed is as under:- JUDGEMENT_9_LAWS(P&H)11_2016.jpg
(3.) The grievance of the petitioners is that they are stated to be seniors while holding the apprenticeship, therefore, they should be given preference as per the decision of the Apex Court reported in AIR 1995 SC 1115 titled as "U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Vs. U.P. Parivahan Nigam Shishukhs Berozgar Sangh and other". The petitioner relied on para 12 of the decision of the Apex Court which reads as under:- "12. In the background of what has been noted above, we state that the following would be kept in mind while dealing with the claim of trainees to get employment after successful of their training:- (1) Other things being equal, a trained apprentice should be given preference over 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. v. Hargopal, AIR 1987 SC 1227, would permit this. (3)If age bar would come in the way of the trainee, the same 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 the apprentice had undergone training would be given. (4) The concerned training institute would maintain a list of the 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." ;