NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.4166 OF 2008

Santosh Kumar Tripathi & Ors. … Appellants

Versus

U. P. Power Corporation & Ors. … Respondents

J U D G M E N T

AFTAB ALAM, J.

1. This appeal by special leave is at the instance of a number of appellants who, more than  

eleven years ago, had done a term of apprenticeship in different trades with the Uttar Pradesh State  

Electricity Board under the provisions of the Apprentices Act, 1961. On completion of the period  

of apprenticeship they claimed absorption as Junior Engineers and on different posts of Operating  

Staff on the basis of their apprentice training in the respective trades suitable for the posts. The  

Board did not accede to their claim and instead issued an advertisement  on October 17,  1998  

inviting applications for filling-up the vacancies of Junior Engineers, Sub-station Officers, Fitters,  

Draftsman Mechanical, Machinists, Lineman, Plumbers, Instrument Mechanic, Wireman, Diesel  

Mechanic,  Boiler  Operators,  Electricians  and  similar  other  posts.  The  appellants  moved  the  

Allahabad High Court seeking a direction in their favour and asking the Board to consider them for  

appointment  on the respective posts relating to the different trades in which they had received  

training as apprentices, ignoring the age bar and giving them preference over candidates who were  

not trained apprentices.   

2. Here, it may be noted that a three-Judge Bench of this Court had rendered the decision on  

January  12,  19995  in  U.  P.  State  Road  Transport  Corporation vs.  U.  P.   Parivahan  Nigam  

Shikshuk Berojgar Sangh, AIR 1995 SC 1115 and in paragraph 13 of the judgment it was observed  

as follows:

“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.”

3. In 1998 when the appellants moved against the advertisement dated October 17, 1998, the  

issue was alive before the Allahabad High Court as to whether the exemption from appearing in  

any written examination as directed by this Court in U. P.  State Road Transport Corporation was  

of  general  application and would  apply  to  all  apprentices  for  employment  in  all  the  different  

departments and organisations. The writ petition filed by the appellants was, therefore, tagged to  

another case being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 23076 of 1998, Arvind Gautam vs. State of U. P.   

& Ors. and the  matter was referred for hearing before a Full Bench. The Full Bench took the view  

that the direction given in paragraph 12 of the Supreme Court judgment in  U. P.  State Road  

Transport Corporation was indeed of general application but the exemption from appearing in the  

written examination as directed in paragraph 13 of the judgment was meant only for the persons  

who were before the Supreme Court in that appeal and to no others.  The case of the appellants was  

also before the Full Bench and since no one appeared in support of the writ petition the Full Bench  

disposed it of on May 27, 1999 by passing the following order:

“The case has been called out.

Learned counsel for the petitioner is not present.

The controversy involved in this petition is identical to the one raised in Civil Misc.  Writ Petition No.23076 of 1998, Arvind Gautam vs. State of U.P. & Ors., decided and  disposed of by this Bench by the order of date.

Thus, this writ petition also is decided and disposed of in terms of and subject to the  decision of the date rendered in the case of Arvind Gautam vs. State of U.P. & Ors.  (Supra).”

4.      The appellants then came before this Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 1838-1839 of 2001.   In  

those appeals a three-Judge Bench of the Court upheld the Full Bench decision of the Allahabad  

High  Court  in Arvind  Gautam  and  agreed  that  the  exemption  from appearing  in  the  written  

examination allowed by the decision in U. P.  State Road Transport Corporation was only for the  

respondents in that case. The Court further held that the question whether or not the apprentices  

were required to appear in the written examination would depend upon the statutory Rules and

Regulations governing the recruitments in question. The Court further held that in the case of the  

appellants the High Court had not examined the relevant Rules concerning the recruitments to find  

out whether or not appearing in a written test, even for an apprentice, was essential to the selection  

process. This Court, accordingly, remitted the matter to the High Court vide. Judgment and order  

dated March 14, 2001 observing as follows:

“Insofar as recruitment to different other posts are concerned, the High Court has not  applied  its  mind  to  different  provisions  dealing  with  the  matter  of  recruitment  to  different posts, and therefore in fitness of things, we think it appropriate to remit all the  matters to the High Court where the High Court would go into the relevant provisions  as well as the relevant advertisement for filling up of different posts and then decide the  question  as  to  whether  in  a  given  case  the  requirement  of  written  examination  is,  provided in any regulation so that even apprentice could be compelled to appear in the  same or there is no such provision in which case apprentices may not be required to  undertake  the  said  examination,  though  they  will  have  to  undergo  the  process  of  selection otherwise.  Without applying mind to the specific provision of the recruitment  to different posts, the aforesaid problem cannot be solved.  It is in these circumstances,  we remit all the matters to the High Court for being re-considered in the light of the  observations made by us.”

5.    By  the  time  the  matter  came  up  before  the  High  Court  for  reconsideration  another  

advertisement was issued in 2001 and vacancies were filled up on that basis. Further, following its  

unbundling and reorganization the U. P. State Electricity Board was replaced by the Uttar Pradesh  

Power Corporation. A Division Bench of the High Court hearing the writ petition on remand noted  

the developments taking place since the matter had first come before it and then, as directed by this  

Court, proceeded to diligently and very thoroughly examine the relevant Rules and Regulations  

concerning the recruitments in question. It found that the recruitments were to be made under the  

U.  P.  State  Electricity  Board  (Limitation  of  Functions)  Regulations,  1978  that  defined  

“Commission” in Clause 2(ii) as the Electricity Service Commission Uttar Pradesh State Electricity  

Board.   Clause  (iii)  of  the  Regulations  provided  that  the  Commission  shall  be  consulted  for  

different purposes, including direct recruitment to the posts of Junior Engineer, Operating Staff  

cadre etc.  Sub-clause (2) of Clause 3 read as under:

“The Commission will examine, interview, select and recommend suitable candidates  in accordance with the criteria prescribed in the relevant Regulations and if there are no  Regulations  in  order  of  merit.   Actual  appointment  orders  will  be  issued  by  the  appointing authority concerned.”                                

6. In  light  of  the  above  provision  the  High  Court  took  the  view  that  the  recruitment

Regulations provided for a written examination and hence, it was a condition precedent for all  

candidates, apprentices not excluded, to appear in the examination and to qualify for appointment.  

Apart from the aforesaid provision the High Court also took into consideration a vast amount of  

other materials for coming to its conclusion.

7.  Mr. Sunil Gupta, Senior Advocate, appearing for the appellants assailed the judgment of  

the High Court and submitted that the expression “examine” occurring in the Regulation could not  

have  meant  a  written  examination  and  not  at  least  for  the  apprentices.  The  High  Court  has  

considered this submission in some detail and has rejected it giving reasons with which we are in  

full agreement. Mr. Gupta also submitted that the judgment of the High Court coming under appeal  

was contrary to the spirit of the three-Judge Bench decision of this Court in  U. P.  State Road  

Transport Corporation and it also overlooked the observations made in the remand order passed by  

this Court asking the High Court to reconsider the matter.

8.   We have heard Mr. Gupta at some length but we are unable to accept his submissions.

9. On  hearing  Mr.  Gupta  and  on  going  through  the  High  Court  judgment  and  the  other  

materials on record, we find that the High Court has taken the correct view of the matter that does  

not call for any interference. There is no merit in this appeal and it is, accordingly, dismissed.  

10. Following the dismissal of the appeal, all the impleadment applications and other interlocutory  

applications, if any, stand dismissed.

        ………………………………J.            [B. Sudershan Reddy]

                   ………………………………J.            [Aftab Alam]  

New Delhi, June 15, 2009.