Compilation Vol 3 Corrected (1-943).pmd - Goa Public Service ...

Uttarakhand PSC
1045
However, the petitioner has prayed that in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of
U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and another Vs U.P. Parivahan Nigam Shishukhs Berozgar
Sangh and others (1995) 2 SCC (1), clause 4 may be complied with in accordance with the order
dated 18.07.2003 passed by the Division Bench of this Court.
Learned counsel for the petitioner states that clause 4 of the aforesaid order is important. However,
in view of the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court the norms will be followed while considering the
representation made by the petitioner. The relevant paragraph 12 is quoted below:
“That the petitioner on 07.01.2002 and 31.01.2002 submitted representations through registered
post to the respondent No.1 and the Chief Secretary, stating therein that in view of several Government
order issued in terms of the judgment and orders passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and High
Court the benefit of apprentice training is not being given to him as such it was prayed that necessary
orders in this regard may be passed and the representations of the petitioner are unreplied.”
In view of the facts and circumstances, the respondents are directed to decide the representation
of the petitioner within a period of six weeks in accordance with the norms framed by the Apex Court
as well as the order dated 18.07.2003 passed by the Division Bench of this Court and while disposing
of the representation of the petitioner sub clause 4 of the norms shall be followed.
With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.
***