JUDGMENT 1. By consent of the learned counsel on either side, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal. Learned standing counsel takes notice for the respondents. Heard both sides. 2. Petitioner passed B.E. degree and got enrolled with the respondent for apprenticeship training on 06.07.2011. The petitioner’s father served as Executive Engineer. Petitioner was called for apprentice training for the year 2013-14 and he also gave undertaking to the fifth respondent stating that he would discontinue the higher studies as soon as he got the order for apprentice training. However, by order dated 15.10.2013, the petitioner request for serving as apprenticeship was rejected on the ground that petitioner father was not working and secondly the petitioner is undergoing higher studies. Therefore, the petitioner gave a representation to the fifth respondent on 11.09.2013 and has come before this court seeking mandamus directing the respondents to issue order of appointment to the petitioner as apprenticeship trainee under wards quota under OBC category. 3. It is admitted that the petitioner completed his B.E. and undergoing M.E. Degree. On 06.07.2011, he made enquiry with the respondent to register is name for engagement of graduate apprentice training. However, when he called for interview on 28.02.2013, Petitioner’s father retired on 30.09.2012. The petitioner’s claim was rejected on the wards quota. That apart candidates pursuing higher studies cannot be appointed. It is seen from the records that the petitioner’s father was working as on 06.07.2011, when the petitioner was enrolled and therefore, he is eligible to get the benefits under wards quota which will enable him to get lesser cutoff marks. Merely because the respondents belatedly called the applications for apprentice training, it would not take away the benefits available to the petitioner at the time of registration i.e. 06.07.2011. Therefore the said ground of rejection that the petitioner’s father was not working at the time of calling for interview is not sustainable. What is material is only the date of registration. Therefore, the petitioner is eligible for getting the benefits under wards quota. As far as the contention that those who are undergoing higher studies are not eligible to be appointed as apprentice has been already rejected by order of this court in W.P.No.23215/2013 based on the undertaking given by the petitioner therein. Therefore, the petitioner is eligible for getting the benefits under wards quota. As far as the contention that those who are undergoing higher studies are not eligible to be appointed as apprentice has been already rejected by order of this court in W.P.No.23215/2013 based on the undertaking given by the petitioner therein. In this case also, the petitioner gave an undertaking on 11.09.2013, that he would discontinue the higher studies and join the apprentice training. The said ground is also not applicable to the respondents. Even though writ of mandamus is sought for, considering the fact that rejection order was already passed by the fifth respondent on 21.10.2013, by moulding the prayer, this court quashes the order dated 15.10.2013 signed on 21.10.2013 further direct the firth respondent to appoint the petitioner as apprentice after getting undertaking as per the undertaking letter given on 11.09.2013 within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 4. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.