Judgment :- (Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order of the learned single Judge dated 4.7.2006 in W.P.No.12542 of 2003.) K. Chandru, J. This writ appeal is filed by the appellant Association against the order of the learned single Judge dated 04.7.2006 made in W.P.No.12542 of 2003. 2. The appellant filed writ petition being W.P.No.12542 of 2003 with a prayer for direction to the respondents 2 and 3 Neyveli Lignite Corporation not to select unskilled persons for the technical posts unless they are in possession of NLC Apprenticeship certificate and who are the members of the petitioner Association. The ground taken by the petitioner Association before the learned single Judge was that the members of the petitioner Association have undergone ITI Course and they are all trained apprentices and they have also been waiting for a job in Neyveli Lignite Corporation for ten years and, therefore, they should give preference to such of those persons, who have worked as apprentices in the respondent Corporation. 3. The learned Judge dismissed the writ petition after referring to paragraph 18 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents 2 and 3. In paragraph 18, it is clearly stated that the persons, who have undergone training in Trade Apprenticeship Training in the Corporation are eligible to participate in the selection subject to fulfiling the other conditions and the Corporation will take care of such those trained persons keeping in view the statutory provisions and the judicial pronouncements in this regard and by recording the said submission, the writ petition was dismissed. Aggrieved at the said order, the petitioner Association has filed the present appeal. 4. We have heard Mr.R.Thiagarajan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Mr.K.Srinivasan, learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the records. 5. Aggrieved at the said order, the petitioner Association has filed the present appeal. 4. We have heard Mr.R.Thiagarajan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Mr.K.Srinivasan, learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the records. 5. Mr.R.Thiagarajan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Mr.K.Srinivasan, learned counsel for the appellant, contended that in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in (1995) 2 SCC 1 [U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and another vs. U.P.Parivahan Nigam Shighukha Burosgar Sangh and others], the trained apprentices are entitled for preference and in any event, he placed reliance upon the order of the Central Government dated 21.4.1983 in which it is stated that 50% of the direct recruitment vacancies may be filled up by trained apprentices by giving first preference to the apprentices trained by the same establishment and thereafter, to those trained by other establishments and, therefore, the appellant's request was justified. 6. We are afraid that such a contention is not available to the appellant in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court dated 03.10.1996 made in Civil Appeal Nos.5285 to 5328 of 1996 [Tamil Nadu Electricity Board vs. P.Arul and others]. In the said judgment, the Supreme Court in page 3, after interpreting the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation's case (cited supra), held as follows: "This court has therefore, clearly laid down that Apprentices/Trainees shall have to go through the process of selection provided under the Service Regulations/Rules. Keeping in view the fact that the Apprentices acquire training under the same management, they are not required to sit in the written test but in a selection where viva-voce test is also provided, it would be necessary for the Apprentices to go through the process of viva-voce. This court has specifically laid down that a trained apprentice should be given preference – other things being equal – over direct recruits. In a given case an Engineering graduate may be preferred to a diploma holder apprentice. It depends on the Selection Committee and also the Regulations/Rules governing the selection. We are of the view that this Court has clearly laid down that the Apprentice-Trainees have no right to be appointed in preference to other applicants." 7. In a given case an Engineering graduate may be preferred to a diploma holder apprentice. It depends on the Selection Committee and also the Regulations/Rules governing the selection. We are of the view that this Court has clearly laid down that the Apprentice-Trainees have no right to be appointed in preference to other applicants." 7. Further, the Supreme Court also held in page 5 with reference to the various instructions issued by the Central Government, in the following lines: "Before parting with this order, we take it clear that this Court has, in U.P. State Road Transport's case (supra), interpreted the provisions of the Act. All instructions issued by the Central Government or by the State Government in this respect shall have to be read in conformity with the law laid down by this Court." Therefore, the reliance placed upon the circular dated 21.4.1983 issued by the Central Government is misconceived. Further, the argument based upon any preferential claim is also rejected by the Supreme Court and hence, the appellant cannot urge the same point before this Court. 8. In the light of the above, the writ appeal fails and the same shall stand dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. Consequently, M.P.No.1 of 2006 will also stand dismissed.