Honble CHAUHAN, J.–The instant writ petition has been filed for restraining the Rajasthan State Mines & Minerals Ltd. from giving appointment to any person on the post of Helper without making proper advertisement of the vacancies, or without following the procedure prescribed under the Apprentices Act, 1961 (for short, ``the Act, 1961). (2). The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that petitioner completed apprenticeship in 1991 and his grievance is that respondents have adopted a very unusual method of giving appointment to the wards of the employees without advertising the vacancies after giving some sort of training which is not according to the Act, 1961 and the names have not been called from the Employ- ment Exchange as is mandatory under the provisions of the Employment Exchange (Compulsory Notifications) Act. (3). Respondent No.1 is an instrumentality of the State and may be a `State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, but at the same time, as it is performing the non-regal/non-sovereign function which can be alienated in favour of private persons, it is an`industry also. Therefore, the issue of appointment/ employment must be governed by the Certified Standing Orders. As per the petitioner, every public under taking is required to convey its need to the concerned District Employment Exchange. The District Employment Officer, in his turn, is required to recommend the names of eligible candidates strictly in order of senior- ity in the ratio of 1:20. Necessary instructions issued in this regard by the Government of India in the National Employment Service Manual ( Vol.I), in para 9.16 run as under:- ``A candidate should be submitted, from the Annual List strictly, in order of seniority in the ratio of 1:20 in case of public sector vacancies. The State Directors may, however, have discretion to raise this ratio, in case it is considered necessary, in case of local conditions if so demanded. However, in each case, a scheme of selection should be preferred on the basis of prescribed qualifications, experience, age, etc. and the applicant is to be selected in order of seniority from the Annual List fulfilling the criteria in the scheme of selection. (4). However, in each case, a scheme of selection should be preferred on the basis of prescribed qualifications, experience, age, etc. and the applicant is to be selected in order of seniority from the Annual List fulfilling the criteria in the scheme of selection. (4). As the Standing Orders have not been placed on record, it is not possible to hold whether Certified Standing Orders provide for any kind of employment to the wards of the employees and for that, reference can be made to Sec. 2 (K) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, ``the Act, 1947) which includes disputes regarding employment or non-employment or terms of employment or the conditions of labour of any person. Therefore, whether `any person includes the wards of the employees, is required to be considered. (5). The Hon`ble Supreme Court, in Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate vs. Management of Dimakuchi Tea Estate (1), considered the issue whether `any per- son includes a person who is not a work-man, and held that `any person means not necessarily a workman but must be one in whose employment, non-employment, terms of employment or conditions of labour, the workman has a close, direct or substantial interest. (6). The issue raised herein is whether the posts can be filled-up without iss- uing advertisement or without calling the names from employment exchange? In view of the law laid down in Excise Superintendent vs. K.B.N. Vishweshara Rao (2); Raj Kumar & Ors. vs. Shakti Raj & Ors. (3); and Arun Trivedi vs. Zila Mansavi Shikshak Sangh (4), the ratio is that in urgent situation, even the names can be called from employment exchange but in general, vacancies should be advertised in addition to calling the names from the employment exchange, also. In case of grave urgency, names may be called from employment exchange only. In the instant case, the grievance has been raised that neither the names are being called from the employment exchange nor vacancies are being advertised. (7). In case of grave urgency, names may be called from employment exchange only. In the instant case, the grievance has been raised that neither the names are being called from the employment exchange nor vacancies are being advertised. (7). In State of Haryana vs. Piara Singh (5), the Honble Supreme Court has held that a post, even ad-hoc or temporary, must be filled up by issusing an advertisement or sponsoring the names from the employment exchange by adopting some appropriate method consistent with the requirement of Art. 16 of the Con- stitution, meaning thereby that there must be a notice published in the appropriate manner calling for applications and all those who apply in response thereto, should be considered fairly. This view has further been reiterated by the Honble Supreme Court in Raj Kumar (Supra) Prabhat Kumar Sharma & Ors. vs. State of U.P. & Ors. (6) and J.A.S. Inter College, Khurja, U.P. & Ors. vs. State of U.P. & Ors. (7). (8). In reply, Mr. R.P. Dave has submitted that the wards have been given a training though not exactly under the Act, 1961 but in a similar manner and giving this kind of employment, even if not consistent with the Standing Orders, is permissible as per the law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in U.P.R.S.R.T.C. & Anr. vs. U.P. Parivahan Nigam Shishukhs Berozgar Sangh & Ors. (8). I am afraid, the ratio of the said judgment is not applicable in this case at all. What the Honble Supreme Court has stated therein is that in absence of any agree- ment under Sec. 22 of the Apprenticeship Act, Trade Apprentice may be given preference in employment `other things being equal. The judgment speaks only for preferential right, therefore there can be no preference amongst unequals. It is only when all conditions/ qualities/ qualifications are equal, the preference can be given to those persons. (9). In Mitrangshu Roy Choudhary & ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. (9), the Apex Court held that in absence of an agreement under Sec. 22 of the Act, 1961, even if the Rules provide for 25% posts to be offered to the successful trade apprentices, they cannot claim the same as a right. (10). In Executive Officer vs. E. Tirupalu and Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. (9), the Apex Court held that in absence of an agreement under Sec. 22 of the Act, 1961, even if the Rules provide for 25% posts to be offered to the successful trade apprentices, they cannot claim the same as a right. (10). In Executive Officer vs. E. Tirupalu and Ors. (10), the Honble Supreme Court held that where rules provide for preference to a particular class of candidates, that preference under the Rules cannot be applied irrespective of the merit of candidates, the inmates have to be given appointment. It means that the merit of the candidates being equal, preference would be given to he inmates of the class which is to be given preferential right and it certainly does not mean an automatic appointment without considering the cases of other candidates. Therefore, even if it is provided for a preferential right, they have a preferential right only when they compete with other candidates and are found on equal footings, otherwise not. (11). There is no force in the submission made by Mr. Dave that the agreement reached with the employees union is to maintain the industrial peace for the reason that this kind of agreement amounts to holding the society on ransom. In a public sector undertaking, the agreement, if any, must be in consonance with law. Such agreement is violative of the mandatory provisions enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. (12). It is settled proposition of law that there is not much difference in the case of employment in public sector undertakings or in the State Government or State Instrumentalities. A Constitution Bench of the Honble Supreme Court in Kripal Singh M.L.A. vs. Uttam Singh & Ors. (11), has dealt with a case of employment in Life Insurance Corporation of India and the Court observed that employees of public corporations cannot be treated differently from employees of the Govern- ment. Though the Court did not decide the issue at a threshold but these observations are enough to show the nature of employment in public sector undertaking and because of the expanding horizon of the public sector undertakings, the employees of public sector undertakings have to be treated as Government employees for various purposes if not for all. (13). Though the Court did not decide the issue at a threshold but these observations are enough to show the nature of employment in public sector undertaking and because of the expanding horizon of the public sector undertakings, the employees of public sector undertakings have to be treated as Government employees for various purposes if not for all. (13). Thus, in view of the above, respondents are restrained to have any kind of reservation/ preference for the wards of its employees either for providing training/apprenticeship or for employment; as the First one will be violative of Arti- cle 14 and the another one of Article 16 of the Constitution. If there is any agreement or certified standing order to the said effect, it is to be ignored being illegal and invalid and hereinafter, neither the training nor appointment shall be made to any person without calling names from the Employment Exchange in addition to public advertisement, without giving any preferential right to any person whatsoever ex- cept those who are covered by the reservation policy implemented by the Central Government/ State Government/ respondent undertaking, if any. (14). In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the persons appointed already by the respondents in contravention of the law, may not be disturbed as they are not party before the Court though the interim order was modi- fied to the extent that their appointment shall be subject to decision of the writ petition and the petitioner, if he has become over-aged, shall be given relaxation in age, to be considered for appointment whenever the next advertisement is made. (15). With these observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs..