Sanjeev Kumar vs State of U.P. and Others

Krishna Murari, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner.

Petitioner claims that he is entitled for regular appointment following the provisions of Apprenticeship Act and the guidelines of the Hon''ble Apex Court in its decision dated 12.01.1995 rendered in the case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Ors. v. U.P. Parivahan Nigam Prashikshu Berojgar Sangh and Ors.

It is contended that the Respondent corporation has issued an advertisement inviting applications for appointment of Technicians Grade II. Though the terms of the advertisement provide that those candidates, who have undergone training under the Apprenticeship Act, 1961, they will be given relaxation in the age, but in view of the judgment of the Hon''ble Apex Court, the Petitioner, who has undergone trainee under the said Act, is not required to appear in the written test.

From a perusal of pleadings, it appears that Petitioner has already made a representation dated 12.08.2010 with respect to his grievances before Respondent No. 2.

Considering the facts and circumstances, writ petition stands disposed of with the liberty to the Petitioner to make a fresh representation along with the certified copy of this order before Respondent No. 2 ventilating all his grievances within a period of three weeks from today and in case any such representation is made, the same shall be decided by Respondent No. 2 by means of reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law and relevant rules within a further period of six weeks from the date of making of the representation.