ORDER: The prayer in the writ petition is for a mandamus directing the respondents to consider the names of the candidates, who had undergone training under the Apprentices Act and had obtained National Trade Certificate issued by the National Council for Vocational Training for being appointed as skilled workers in the second respondent corporation. Heard Mr.S.Subbiah, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner; Mr.S.Gopinathan, learned Government Advocate appearing for the first respondent as well as Mr.K.M. Vijayan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3. The grievance of the writ petitioner is that the students, who had undergone apprentice training in the institutions other than the institutions run by the various Transport Corporations, are not given their due opportunity to compete with the others in the matter of employment in the Transport Corporations. According to the learned counsel for the writ petitioner, the Transport Corporations are giving employment only to the candidates, who had undergone apprentices training in the institutions run by the Transport Corporations. The sum and substance of the argument of the learned counsel for the writ petitioner is that employment opportunities to all persons, other than those who had undergone training in the various institutions run by the Transport Corporations, are permanently closed. This according to the learned counsel for the writ petitioner would offend Art.16 of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel relies upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in a case reported in Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v. U.P. Parivahan N.S.B.Singh, A.I.R. 1995 S.C. 1115, wherein the question of absorbing apprentices, who had undergone the necessary training for employment as against the untrained direct recruits came up for consideration and guidelines have been given. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents would state that in absorbing the apprentices, who had undergone the necessary training in the institutions run by the Transport Corporations, the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the judgment referred to above is strictly followed. According to the learned counsel for the respondents, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India was fully aware of the entire factual matrix, while the directions, in absorbing apprentices in the matter of employment in the Transport Corporations were given. According to the learned counsel for the respondents, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India was fully aware of the entire factual matrix, while the directions, in absorbing apprentices in the matter of employment in the Transport Corporations were given. The learned counsel for the respondents would further state that each of the Transport Corporation, as a matter of right, is entitled to absorb only those persons, who had undergone apprentices training in the institutions run by the Transport Corporations and they need not go for open market recruitment. The learned counsel would also state that it is not as though the apprentices, who had undergone training in the institutions run by the Transport Corporations are the kith and kin of their employees but the employment exchange is notified of the vacancies for apprentices in the Transport Corporations with a request to sponsor the names. The employment exchange also sponsors the names of eligible candidates available in open market, which may or may not include the names of the persons, who are the kith and kin of the employees of the Transport Corporations. From among those sponsored names, apprentices are taken, trained and only those trained apprentices are given the employment in preference to the open market direct recruits available. According to the learned counsel for the respondents the apprentices, who had undergone training in the Transport Corporations, cannot be said to be the kith and kin of the employees of the Transport Corporations and they may be outsiders also. Therefore, when permanently employment is given by absorbing such trained apprentices from their institutions, neither Art.16 of the Constitution of India is violated nor the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India referred to above is flouted. The learned counsel for the respondents also has filed a memo before this Court stating that during the last seven years, 984 candidates were employed as apprentices, out of whom, 258 candidates alone were appointed in permanent technical jobs. During the said period of seven years, only 79 apprentices, who belonged to the group of the kith and kin of their employees, were trained. But of those 79 candidates, only 18 were appointed in permanent vacancies. During the said period of seven years, only 79 apprentices, who belonged to the group of the kith and kin of their employees, were trained. But of those 79 candidates, only 18 were appointed in permanent vacancies. It is also the submission of the learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3 that the second and the third respondents are not running any institution as such but the apprentices selected are trained along with the other employees in the Department itself. 3. In the light of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel on either side, I applied my mind to the facts brought to the notice of this Court. The whole issue involved in this case revolves around the reading and understanding of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India referred to above. Originally, there was direction by the Allahabad High Court against the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation to absorb in employment only those apprentices, who had undergone training in the institutions run by the Transport Corporations themselves. That direction was stated to have been issued on the basis of promissory estoppel. In paragraph 2 of the judgment referred to above, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India had referred to this fact and the Hon’ble Judges had held that they are in entire agreement with the argument of the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation. It only means, according to me, that there cannot be any direction to absorb only the apprentices, who had undergone training in the institutions run by the Transport Corporations. In the back drop of that fact if the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India is read, especially paragraph 12, wherein the guidelines are given, it can be clearly and undoubtedly seen that the said judgment does not give any special right or permission to any Transport Corporation to absorb the apprentices, who had undergone training in the institutions run by the Transport Corporations only in permanent vacancies or even in temporary vacancies. According to me and with great respect, the said judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India does not admit of such a situation as contended by the learned counsel for the respondents. According to me and with great respect, the said judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India does not admit of such a situation as contended by the learned counsel for the respondents. If such a reading is given to the said judgment, then it would mean that the apprentices, who had not undergone training in the institutions run by the Transport Corporations, however much they may be qualified and however much they may be senior in the matter of registering themselves in the employment exchange, would never have ny chance to enter into the employment in the Transport Corporations. 4. Therefore, according to me, in following the said judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, the only course open to the Transport Corporations would be to notify the vacancies to the employment exchange and request them for sponsoring the names of the apprentices, irrespective of the place from where the registered candidates had undergone the apprenticeship training. This compliance, according to me, would be fair and proper and this would afford an equal opportunity to all concerned in the matter of public employment. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents would argue that the Transport Corporations having spent considerable sums of money in imparting training to the apprentices, it should be given the liberty to exploit the resources at their command to the exclusion of others. It may be true that the Transport Corporations might have spent considerable sums of money in imparting training to the apprentices but at the same time, in the matter of public employment, opportunities to others, who have acquired similar qualifications, though not at the cost of the Transport Corporation, should be given to compete with the apprentices, who are trained by the Transport Corporations. 5. It is not the case of the learned counsel for the respondents that the candidates, who have undergone apprentices training and obtained certificates from the institutions other than the institutions that are run by the Transport Corporations, are not equals. It is needless to state that equals must be trained equally and not unequally. One other point which the learned counsel for the respondents would argue is that, the Transport Corporations are entitled to give preference to the kith and kin of their employees as indicated in the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India referred to above in making the appointments. One other point which the learned counsel for the respondents would argue is that, the Transport Corporations are entitled to give preference to the kith and kin of their employees as indicated in the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India referred to above in making the appointments. It is no doubt true that in the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India referred to above, certain guidelines and preferences are indicated. If it is available to the Transport Corporations, then it is always open to them to follow those guidelines and show preferences in accordance with the terms of the said judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. 6. Under the circumstances, I am inclined to pass the following order: Whenever job opportunities arise in the respondent Transport Corporations, they are directed to notify the vacancies to the employment exchange; request for sponsoring the names of the apprentices, who had undergone a valid apprenticeship training and registered themselves with the employment exchange, irrespective of the fact whether they had undergone the said training in the institutions run by the Transport Corporations only or in any other institutions and consider the same in accordance with the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India as referred to above, subject to any preference that are available to the kith and kin of the employees of the Transport Corporations as per the said judgment. 7. With the above observations, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected W.M.P. is closed.