Judgment The petitioner in the present Writ Petition No.15410 of 2009 seeks to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1st respondent to consider the candidates for appointment of petitioners to the 1100 posts of Technical Assistants in the 1st from among the trainee apprentices trained in the 1st respondent without fixing any upper age limit, based on the seniority of the Trainee Assistants on a preferential basis as long as such trainee apprentices have the requisite D.E.E.E qualification after following the selection process set out in the Service Regulations of the 1st Respondent as per the guidelines set out by the Honble Supreme Court in order dated 010. 1996 in Civil Appeal Nos.5285 of 1996 and in S.L.P.No.45556/1996. The petitioner in W.P.No.17788 of 2009 seeks to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1st respondent to consider the petitioner for appointment to the 1100 posts of Technical Assistants 1st from among the Trainee Apprentices trained in the 1st respondent without fixing any upper age limit, based on the seniority of the Trainee Assistants on a preferential basis as long as such trainee apprentices have the requisite D.E.E.E qualification after following the selection process set out in the service regulations of the 1st respondent as per the guidelines set out by the Honble Supreme Court in order dated 010. 1996 in Civil Appeal Nos.5285-5328 of 1996. 2. Since the common issues have been raised in all these two Writ petitions, they have been heard and disposed of by means of this common order. 3. All these petitioners state that they got the Diploma in Electrical and Electronics Engineering (hereinafter referred to as D.E.E.E) in the year 1989 (Petitioners in W.P.No.15410 of 2009) and in the year 1990 (Petitioner in W.P.No.17788 of 2009) from the Board of Technical Education, State of Tamil Nadu. They also completed the apprenticeship training with the 1st respondent TNEB during the years 1990 to 1992 (petitioners in W.P.No.15410 of 2009) and 1991 to 1992(Petitioners in W.P.No.17788 of 2009) and thereafter with a Diploma in D.E.E.E, the petitioners in W.P.No.15410 of 2009 registered with the Employment Exchange in the year 1988 and petitioner in W.P.No.17788 of 2009 registered in the year 1990. With apprentice qualification, the petitioners in W.P.No.15410 of 2009 registered in the year 1991 and the petitioner in W.P.No.17788 of 2009 registered his name with Employment Exchange in the year 1991-92. With apprentice qualification, the petitioners in W.P.No.15410 of 2009 registered in the year 1991 and the petitioner in W.P.No.17788 of 2009 registered his name with Employment Exchange in the year 1991-92. The Government of Tamil Nadu by G.O.Ms.No.1151, Labour and Employment dated 18.07.1979, provided for recruitment of apprentices in the same establishment wherein they underwent the training without going through the Employment Exchange only if there is no time lag between completion of training and commencement of aid employment. When it is not possible for the establishment to employ its own apprentices, the apprentices should register with the Employment Exchange which should sponsor the candidates in terms of seniority. The Government of Tamil Nadu by its proceedings dated 012. 1980 amended the 6th paragraph of the G.O.Ms.No.1151 dated 18.07.1979 stating that all vacancies arising in an establishment should first be notified to the concerned Employment Exchange, requesting them to nominate the Apprentices trained by the establishment against the vacancies and if no such candidates are available, the Employment Exchange will issue a non-availability certificate to the employers to enable the Establishment to appoint the apprentices trained by other establishments. 4. In the present case, the first respondent board by its proceedings in B.P.Ms. (FB).No.69, dated 13.09.1988, issued orders to discontinue the procedure of giving preference to the candidates who have completed apprenticeship training in the 1st respondent on the ground that others were not able to get employment with the 1st respondent. 5. Aggrieved by the said B.P.No.69, a number of persons who had completed apprenticeship with the 1st respondent, challenged the B.P.No.69 in W.P.No.11807 of 1988 assailing that they are entitled to be selected in preference to other applicants. The writ petition was dismissed by a single judge. Aggrieved by this, an appeal was filed, the Division Bench allowed the appeal and held that the D.E.E.E. Candidates who have apprenticed with the 1st respondent are entitled to be selected without going through the selection process. In the appeal filed by the TNEB, the Supreme Court by order dated 010. 1996 in Civil Appeal No.5285/96 and in S.L.P.No.45556/1996, held that the trainee apprentices have to go through the selection process provided under the regulations and they have no right to be appointed on a preferential basis over other candidates. In the appeal filed by the TNEB, the Supreme Court by order dated 010. 1996 in Civil Appeal No.5285/96 and in S.L.P.No.45556/1996, held that the trainee apprentices have to go through the selection process provided under the regulations and they have no right to be appointed on a preferential basis over other candidates. However, the Apex Court, referring to the earlier Supreme Court decision in 1995(2)SCC 1 in the case of UP State Road Transport Corp. Vs. UP Parivahan, also set out the benefits to which the trainee apprentices would be entitled to during the process of selection. 6.This Court has considered the case of the petitioners in W.P.Nos.24317 and 24318 of 2008, 3033, 11987,12045,13743 and 14740 of 2009 and passed the order in these Writ petitions on 14.09.2009. Similar prayer is also made in the present Writ Petitions also, hence this Court deems it better to dispose of these present writ petitions also on the same line. 6.This Court has considered the case of the petitioners in W.P.Nos.24317 and 24318 of 2008, 3033, 11987,12045,13743 and 14740 of 2009 and passed the order in these Writ petitions on 14.09.2009. Similar prayer is also made in the present Writ Petitions also, hence this Court deems it better to dispose of these present writ petitions also on the same line. Hence, the above two Writ Petitions are disposed of with the following directions: "(i) In so far as the candidates belonging to Backward Classes, Most Backward Classes, Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes or Destitute widows of all caste, if they possess any qualification higher than the Diploma in Electrical and Electronic Engineering, it is declared that there shall be no upper age limit to them: .(ii) In respect of the candidates who have Diploma in Electrical and Electronic Engineering and who have undergone the apprenticeship training in the Tamilnadu Electricity Board, the respondents shall give relaxation in the matter of age as directed by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of UP State Road Transport Corporation and another VS UP Perivahan Nigam Shishukha Berogar Sangh and Ors, reported in 1995 .(2) SCC 1.; (iii) In respect of preferences, as directed by the Honble Supreme Court, the petitioners who have undergone the apprenticeship training in the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board shall be given preference over the direct recruits when other qualifications are being equal: (iv) In respect of the petitioners who have not undergone apprenticeship training in the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, unless they satisfy the upper age limit prescribed in Regulation 91 (1), they shall not be eligible for appointment as Technical Assistants Grade II, (v) Considering the fact that many candidates have been waiting for employment for several years after having undergone the apprenticeship course, the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board is directed to consider to give relaxation in the matter of upper age limit in exercise of the power under Regulation 111 in respect of future vacancies, if any representation is made in this regard and (vi) In any event the respondents shall complete the exercise within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.