Judgment 1. Mr. A.P. Muthupandian, learned Standing Counsel takes notice for the respondents. 2. Heard the learned Counsel on either side. 3. The petitioner is aggrieved against the order passed by the second respondent dated 13.05.2013 and consequently is seeking for a direction to the respondent to appoint him in the post of Junior Tradesman from the date on which the candidates who appeared in the interview along with him were appointed by deducting the period of Apprenticeship Training undergone by him from 07.05.1999 to 06.05.2000 in the first respondent Corporation while determining his upper age limit for appointment to the post of Junior Tradesman. 4. The case of the petitioner is as follows: He passed S.S.L.C in March 1996, and he joined in the Industrial Training Institute, Pandian Roadways Corporation, Madurai, in the Trade of Mechanic (Motor Vehicle). He was undergoing training in the first respondent Corporation from August 1996 to July 1998. He applied for undergoing Apprenticeship Training under the Apprenticeship Act, 1961 and he joined the first respondent Corporation for undergoing such training. He joined the training on 07.05.1999 at K.Pudur Branch of the first respondent Corporation and the training was concluded on 06.05.2000. The National Apprenticeship Certificate was also issued to him. The period of Apprenticeship Training shall be deducted while calculating upper age limit as per G.O.Ms.No.202, Labour and Employment Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, dated 01.02.1980. The petitioner's name was sponsored by the Employment Exchange to the post of Junior Tradesman post. On such sponsorship, he received a call letter on 18.09.2012 from the second respondent and he was called upon to attend the interview on 25.09.2012. On the date of interview, the petitioner was 35 years and 3 months old. However, the call letter mentioned that the candidates should have upper age limit in 35 years insofar as the B.C candidates are concerned. The petitioner was called upon to attend the interview once again on 08.03.2013 and accordingly, he appeared for interview, but he was not selected. Therefore, he sent a representation and consequently, the impugned communication dated 13.05.2013, was issued to the petitioner stating that no order from the Government has been received for deducting the period of Apprenticeship Training undergone by the petitioner while computing his upper age limit. 5. Therefore, he sent a representation and consequently, the impugned communication dated 13.05.2013, was issued to the petitioner stating that no order from the Government has been received for deducting the period of Apprenticeship Training undergone by the petitioner while computing his upper age limit. 5. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the issue involved in this case is already considered by this Court in W.P.(MD)No.4630 of 2013 filed by similarly situated persons and the said writ petition was allowed, directing the respondents thereon to grant relaxation of the upper age limit to the extent of training undergone by the petitioner therein. 6. He further submitted that the said order is challenged in W.A.(MD)No.1007 of 2013 and the said writ appeal came to be dismissed on 02.04.2014. Therefore, he submitted that the issue involved in this case is squarely covered by the decision of this Court. 7. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent Corporation fairly submitted that the issue involved in this case is squarely covered by the above decision of this Court. 8. The relevant paragraphs 3 to 7 of the Honourable Division Bench of this court are as follows: "3. The 1st respondent passed 12th Standard in 1996-97 and thereafter passed I.T.I.Mechanic Course. After completion of the Industrial Training Institute Course, he took training as an Apprentice in the Appellants' Transport Corporation, for a period of two years from 08.11.2004 to 07.1.2006. 4. When the Appellants took steps to fill-up eight vacancies of Technical Assistants, the name of the 1st respondent was sponsored by the Employment Exchange. All the candidates, who were invited for the interview on 18.03.2013, attended the interview. The case of the 1st respondent was not considered on the ground that he had crossed the upper age limit of 35 years for appointment, by a few months. 5. Therefore, the 1st respondent filed a writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.4630 of 2013. Based upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation vs. U.P. Parivahan Nigam - AIR 1995 SC 1115 , the learned Judge allowed the writ petition, directing the appellants to grant relaxation in the upper age limit to the extent of the apprenticeship training undergone by the 1st respondent. Aggrieved by the sad order, the Transport Corporation is on appeal. 6. Aggrieved by the sad order, the Transport Corporation is on appeal. 6. The main ground on which the appellants challenge the order of the learned Judge is that the Corporation is registered as a Company under the Companies Act, 1956 and that the Common Service Rules, relating to recruitment in the Corporation, prescribe an upper age limit. Therefore, the appellants contend that there is no scope for relaxation in upper age limit. 7. The above contention is wholly untenable. The Apprentices Act, 1961, is a Central enactment. The decision of the Supreme Court relied upon by the learned Judge makes it clear that the benefit of relaxation of upper age limit is applicable to Act Apprentices. The Common Service Rules of the Appellants do not contain anything contrary to the power of relaxation of the upper age limit. Therefore, the order of the learned Judge cannot be assailed. Hence, the writ appeal is dismissed. No costs. Connected M.P.(MD) no.2 of 2013 is also dismissed." 9. Considering the fact that the issue involved in this case is squarely covered by the earlier decision of this Court as referred to supra, which is not disputed by the respondents, this writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to grant relaxation of upper age limit to the extent of apprenticeship training undergone by him and consequently, consider him to the post of Junior Tradesman from the date on which the candidates who appeared for interview along with him and were appointed. Such order shall be passed by the respondents within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.