Judgment 1. This writ petition has been filed for the issuance of a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2 to consider the petitioner for the post of Helper (Industrial Training Institute) (National Trade Certificate). 2. The petitioner would contend that he had completed his plus two in the year 1986 and has passed the examinations in March 1990. In the meanwhile, he has joined the Industrial Training Institute (National Trade Certificate) Wireman Trade in the Government Industrial Training Institute, Hosur and has passed in the year 1991. The petitioner got his name registered with the third respondent, namely, District Employment Officer, District Employment Exchange, Dharmapuri, in June 1991 with the plus two and the Industrial Training Institute (National Trade Certificate) qualifications. 3. It is further contended by the petitioner that he also did the Company Apprenticeship Course and completed the same in December 1993 and has also got the National Apprenticeship Certificate and this fact was also registered by the third respondent. Apart from this, he did B.A. degree in History under Distance Education Programme in 2006 and also got Electrical C Licence as early as in October 2007. 4. The petitioners main contention was that he had received only two intimation letters in 1997 and 1999 and that he was not selected in 1997 and thereafter, in 1999 he got the interview call letter belatedly. Now, the Government has sought for I.T.I. helper from the I.T.I. Certificate Holders for about 2500 posts and that the National Apprenticeship Certificates Holders could be sponsored upto the age of 41 years. But, unfortunately, the petitioners application has not been considered and therefore, he had sent an application on 112. 2008 and as he was not sponsored by the employment exchange, he could not participate. Hence, he has come forward with the present writ petition. 5. While admitting the writ petition in W.P.No.30198 of 2008, on 212. 2008, this Court in M.P.No.1 & 2 of 2008 has directed the respondents to keep one post of Helper vacant and ordered notice. Subsequently, pending the writ petition, the petitioner was called for an interview for the selection of the very same I.T.I. helper post for the interview to be held on 22. 2009 at about 9.00 a.m. But, the petitioner would contend that the said interview card was received by him only at 12.00 noon on 22. Subsequently, pending the writ petition, the petitioner was called for an interview for the selection of the very same I.T.I. helper post for the interview to be held on 22. 2009 at about 9.00 a.m. But, the petitioner would contend that the said interview card was received by him only at 12.00 noon on 22. 2009 and consequently, the petitioner was unable to attend the interview at the prescribed time. Therefore, the petitioner approached the Chief Engineer/Personnel and on his advise, he went to meet the Senior Personnel Officer, but, as he was not available, the petitioner met the Assistant Personnel Officer and brought to his notice about the late delivery of the letter. In spite of the aforesaid facts being brought to the notice of the respondents, the petitioner was not interviewed on that day and therefore, he has also sought for further direction from this Court. At this point of time, this Court on 3. 2009, passed an order that as the order dated 212. 2008 in M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2008 in W.P.No.30198 of 2008, was still in force, which would safeguard the interest of the petitioner, no further orders are necessary and directed the respondents to file a counter and posted the case for enquiry. Though the case has been posted thereafter, the respondents did not file a counter. 6. At this point of time, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the first and second respondents as well as the learned Government Advocate for the third respondent stated that the main writ petition could be disposed of taking into consideration the subsequent event of calling for interview of the petitioner by the Department. Hence, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal by consent of parties. 7. The learned counsels appearing for both the parties categorically admitted one thing that the petitioner subsequent to the filing of the writ petition has been called for an interview for selection to the post of Industrial Training Institute helper by the Electricity Board on 22. 2009 and unfortunately, the very interview card reached the petitioner only late in the evening. Even though he could reach the office on the same day, he was not interviewed as the time fixed by them was in the morning. 8. 2009 and unfortunately, the very interview card reached the petitioner only late in the evening. Even though he could reach the office on the same day, he was not interviewed as the time fixed by them was in the morning. 8. From the perusal of the records and as per the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the both sides, it is very clear that the petitioner has got the requisite qualifications to apply and he could have been considered by the third respondent. The third respondent has also rightly sent the interview card to the petitioner to attend the interview on 22. 2009. It is also admitted by the learned counsel appearing for the both the parties that still the posts are kept vacant pursuant to the direction of this Court in M.P.Nos.1 & 2 of 2008 in W.P.No.30198 of 2008. As the petitioner further categorically pleads that he would complete the age of 41 years on 16. 2009 and unless the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the authorities concerned to consider his candidature for the post, he would not be eligible for applying the posts. Therefore, taking into consideration of all the subsequent events and the fact that he would become age barred, this Court directs the second respondent to consider the petitioner for selection to the post of I.T.I. helper in accordance with the rules and regulations, if he is eligible for such selection. The petitioner may be called for an interview, as he could not attend the interview on 22. 2009 and as he has been sponsored by the employment exchange and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the third respondent, the District Employment Officer, District Employment Exchange, Dharmapuri, has no objection for conducting an interview for the above said post in respect of the petitioner by the second respondent. The second respondent is directed to consider the petitioner for selection to the posts of I.T.I. helpers and call for an interview and pass necessary orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if he is otherwise eligible for such selection. 9. With the above directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. Consequently, connected M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2008 and M.P.No.1 of 2009 are closed. No costs.