JUDGMENT Rakesh Tiwari, J.
1. The respendents advertised 218 posts of Technician Grade-II (Electricity) on 8.10.2004. The petitioners applied and appeared in the written examination and interview but were not selected by the Electricity Service Commission.
2. The grievance of the petitioners is that they are trained apprentices and holders of National Apprenticeship Certificate in the aforesaid trade but they have not been given preference and untrained persons have been selected.
3. It is not in dispute that the petitioners appeared and competed with other candidates The candidates who were found suitable and more meritorious than the petitioners have been selected.
4. It is not in dispute that the Electricity Service Commission has selected the candidates on the basis of merits. There is no material before this Court to arrive to the conclusion that they were equal or were less meritorious than the petitioners merely because they are not trained. It cannot be said that the petitioner are equal in all respect to the candidates who are selected by the Electricity Service Commission and have not been given preference. A bald statement that they have not been given preference is not enough for this Court to interfere in the selections made by the Electricity Service Commission, as such, the reliefs claimed for quashing the result! of the recruitment test for the posts of Technician Grade-II (Electricity) published on 29.10.2005 as well as for direction to the respondents not to fill up the posts of Technician Grade II (Electricity) in pursuance of the result declared by the Electricity Service Commissidn cannot be granted.
5. The word 'preference' connotes that where eligibility, including merits, is equal, a candidate who has undergone apprenticeship training may be given preference for appointment but where other things are not equal, a candidate who has undergone apprentice hip training cannot make a grievance that he has not been given appointment.
6. The object of imparting training under the Apprenticeship Act, 1961 to a person is not to provide employment to him. The object is that after receiving training, he will engage himself in the trade and provide employment to other unemployed, thus opening more employment avenue for others. Apprenticeship training in a trade is not a training burden the establishment. A person who has undergone apprenticeship training has no legal right of employment but has to compete with others for employment with an edge over others.
7. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.