JUDGMENT Vineet Saran, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri Sandeep Saxena, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that he has undergone apprenticeship training in production with the respondent-Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited from 22.11.1986 to 24.11.1987. On that basis the petitioner claims that he has been a certificate of having completed apprenticeship training in the year 1987. On 4.2.2005 an advertisement was issued for filling up certain posts of Mechanical, Electrical and Civil Supervisors. The petitioner claims that since he has already undergone apprenticeship training, he ought to be appointed on the vacant posts of Mechanical Supervisor. The petitioner had applied for such appointment in pursuance of the said advertisement and his application has been rejected on the ground that he did not fulfill the eligibility criteria i.e. he had not securec the requisite minimum percentage of marks in each subject. He has thus filed this writ petition challenging the said order dated 30th March, 2005 whereby his candidature has been rejected and has also prayed for a direction to the respondents to give him appointment, on the post of Mechanical Supervisor.
3. By a circular dated 21.2.2005 issued by the respondent -Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited, the eligibility criteria had been fixed for the general, other backward caste and scheduled caste candidates. By the said circular it has been provided that the aggregate makes of all years/semesters for a scheduled caste candidate should be at least 65% and the marks in every subject in each year/semester should be at least 50%. It is not disputed that the petitioner, who is a scheduled caste candidate, has not obtained 50%) marks in each subject.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed on reliance on a decision of the Apex Court rendered in the case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. U.P. Parivahan Nigam Shishukshu Berozgar Sangh and Ors., 1995 (2) A.W.C. 828 wherein observations/directions have been given that other things being equal, a apprentice should be given preference over direct recruits. In view of the fact that the petitioner has not obtained minimum marks as required by the circular dated 21.2.2005 and only those candidates who had obtained such minimum marks are being considered for appointment on the post which had been advertised, the question of giving preference does not arise as the preference is to be given only when other things are equal. Thus, no mandamus can be issued to directly give appointment to the petitioner on the post of Mechanical Supervisor.
5. The circular dated 21.2.2005 providing eligibility criteria for appointment on the post which had been advertiser (filed as Annexure-5 to the writ petition) has not been challenged in this writ petition. Since the petitioner admittedly does not fulfill the eligibility criteria which had been fixed by the respondents for all the candidates, the order dated 30.3.2005 rejecting the application of the petitioner cannot be said to be bad or illegal.
6. Thus this writ petition lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs.