B. K. RATHI, J. The petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 43625 of 1997 which was disposed of by this Court on 26-5-1998. The petitioner is trained apprentice. He claimed appointment on the basis of decision of the Apex Court in the case UPSRTC referred to the judgment. His case is that he took training from the year 1980 to 1983 for three years. That all the other persons, who took training with him were absorbed by the opposite parties in the year 1984-85. However, the petitioner was not absorbed. Therefore, he was forced to file the above writ petition. The case of the UPSRTC was considered by this Court and writ petition was disposal of finally with the following observation : "the persons trained earlier are to be given preference to those who have been trained later and for this purpose training institute would maintain a list of persons trained year-wise. In this view of the matter no specific direction can be given in favour of an individual approaching the Court except that his case be considered in accordance with the above direction as and when occasion arises for appointment. " 2. In view of this direction of the Court, the representation of the petitioner was considered and it was rejected regarding which the registered letter was sent to the petitioner which is Annexure No. CA-3 dated 20-4-2000. The appointment of the petitioner was refused on two ground, firstly, he has not passed NCTVT examination. The second ground is that he is over age inspite of the due relaxation as per the judgment, in accordance with the relevant recruitment Rules i. e. , SRO 185 of 1994. 3. It has been argued by Sri Sudhakar Pandey, learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner completed apprentice training in the year 1983 and should have been appointed in the year 1984 when other persons were employed. That at that time the Rules of 1979 where applicable. The said rules have been filed and it is argued that there was no condition of passing NCTVT examination at that time nor there was any age bar. 4. It is further contended that the date of birth of the petitioner is 1-7-1962. That therefore, at that time when he was qualified for appointment i. e. , in the year 1984, he was not over age. 4. It is further contended that the date of birth of the petitioner is 1-7-1962. That therefore, at that time when he was qualified for appointment i. e. , in the year 1984, he was not over age. That the opposite parties delayed the appointment of the petitioner and they cannot be permitted to take advantage of their own fault. 5. In this connection, learned Counsel for the petitioner has referred to the decision of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Chairman, Admission Committee, Combined Entrance Examination, 1998 M. L. N. Regional Engineering College, Allahabad and another v. Shailesh Kumar, 1999 (3) AWC 1919 . It was observed in this case that the appellant cannot be permitted to capitalise their own fault as there was no delay or laches on part of the respondent in approaching the Court. This observation was made in a different context and has no application in the present case. This was a case regarding the admission on the vacant seat and the petitioner filed the writ petition without delay. The above observation was made while repealing the argument that the session is nearing completion. 6. In the present case, according to the petitioner he was entitled to the appointment in the year 1984, but he was not appointed then and he filed the writ petition in the year 1997 i. e. , after 13 years, which was disposed of by this Court on 26-5-1998. The petitioner therefore, cannot claim benefit of the fact that he was entitled to appointment in the year 1984. The entitlement for appointment cannot be examined in this petition. In this petition the only question for consideration is as to what was granted to the petitioner in the writ and whether the same has been given by the opposite parties or not. Prior to the filing and decision of this petition guidelines for appointment were issued on 17-1-1981, which is Annexure No. CA-4. According to which, NCTVT examination was necessary for appointment. Therefore, the petitioner could not be given appointment as he has not passed the NCTVT examination. There is no order of this Court to give appointment to the petitioner even if as he has not passed the NCTCT examination. 7. New rules have been framed in the year 1994 regarding the recruitment, which has been filed as Annexure No. CA-5. Therefore, the petitioner could not be given appointment as he has not passed the NCTVT examination. There is no order of this Court to give appointment to the petitioner even if as he has not passed the NCTCT examination. 7. New rules have been framed in the year 1994 regarding the recruitment, which has been filed as Annexure No. CA-5. According to the Rule 7 the age limit is 30 years, which can be relaxed for five years. The result is that the appointment could be given upto the age of 35 years. The petitioner attained the age of 35 years on 1-7-1997 prior to the date of order passed in the writ petition. Therefore, he could not be appointed according to the Rules. 8. In the circumstances, the representation of the petitioner after considering the judgment of the writ petition was rightly rejected. 9. The Apex Court in the case of U. P. Rajya Vidyut Parishad Apprentice Welfare Association and another v. State of U. P. and others, 2000 (2) LBESR 974 (SC) : JT 2000 (6) SC 227, has held that to avail the benefits of Transport Corporations case (on the basis of which the writ petition of the present petitioner was disposed of), the apprentice should go through the procedure of examination/interview. Therefore, the prescribing of passing of NCTVT examination by the Rules cannot be said to be illegal. 10. Similar view was taken by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Arvind Gautam v. State of U. P. and others, 1999 (2) LBESR 328 (All) : 1999 (2) UPLBEC 1397 . It was observed in this case that it is clear that the apprentice trainees are also required to participate in the competitive examination or test as may be provided by the Rules. 11. After considering the arguments, I find that the representation of the petitioner was rightly decided and he is not entitled to the recruitment due to the age bar and having not passed NCTVT examination. 12. I may also referred to the decision of Lalith Mathur v. D. Maheswara Rao, 2000 (10) SCC, 285. In this case, the direction was to decide the representation, which was decided. It was held that there is no contempt of the order of this Court. 13. In view of the above, the petition for contempt is dismissed. Petition dismissed. .