JUDGMENT
Khan, (J)
1. We have already held in CWP No. 124/2000 on the
strength of the Supreme Court judgment in in Bhoodev Singh
v. Chairman, U.P.S.E.Bd. and Ors. (Civil Appeal
Nos. 1838-1853/2001) decided on 14.3.2001 that a trained
apprentice was also required to undergo a written
examination/viva voce/trade test/any other competitive test
prescribed by recruitment rules/regulations/execute
instructions and was entitled to considered for
appointment on preferential basis only after he had secured
equal merit with a non-apprentice candidate. This
proposition squarely covers the present case also.
2. Petitioner in this case was also a trained
apprentice and a candidate for the post of Telecom Mechanic
for which respondents had invited applications and asked
candidates to appear in a trade test. He instead of taking
the test filed. OA No. 390/99 and claimed that respondents
had first done away with this test in their execute
instructions dated 14.5.1998 issued pursuant to Supreme
Court judgment in UPSRTC v. U.P. Parivahan Limited, which they had later deleted by a subsequent
communication dated 17.8.1998. He accordingly challenged
this communication and claimed that he was not required to
undergo trade test in terms of this Supreme Court judgment.
Tribunal, after taking into consideration this judgment and
the subsequent Full Bench judgment of the Allahabad High
Court in Arvind Gautam v. State of U.P. (2) UPLBC
1397) held that he was required to undergo the trade test
and that para 13 of the Supreme Court judgment did not
advance his case and accordingly dismissed his OA. Hence
this petition.
3. In view of the law laid down by Supreme Court in
Bhoodev Singh’s case and followed by us in connected CWP
No. 124/2001, we affirm impugned Tribunal order and hold
that petitioner had no option but to take the requisite
test and that he could not be excepted from it. This
petition resultantly fails and is dismissed.