JUDGMENT : MANOJIT BHUYAN, J. 1. Heard Mr. N. Dhar, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, learned senior counsel for the respondents, assisted by Ms S. Senapati, learned counsel. 2. This intra-Court appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 8.8.2017 passed in WP(C) 1246/2016. The appellant herein was the writ petitioner. 3. Primary prayer made in the writ petition was for a direction to the respondent Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Limited (ONGCL) to confer suitable employment to the appellant in view of having successfully completed apprenticeship training in drilling under the Apprentices Act, 1961. The appellant is admittedly a certified Trade Apprentice, having qualified in the necessary training. He holds a Certificate of Apprenticeship issued by the Deputy General Manager (Mechanical), ONGC, Cachar as well as a National Apprentice Certificate, issued by the Minister of Labour and Employment, Government of India. 4. Brief facts as appearing from the materials on record are that a Recruitment Advertisement dated 2.7.2015 was issued for specific numbers of posts in the rank of Junior Assistant Rigman (Drilling), Junior Assistant Technician (Production) and Junior Assistant Technician (Fitting). The appellant offered his candidature against all three categories in respect of posts earmarked for Silchar, pursuant to which he appeared in the written test held on 20.9.2015. The appellant could not qualify for the interview as he had scored 30.83% marks in the written examination, which was far below the minimum cut-off marks for the three categories. The result of the written test was declared on 1.1.2016 and thereafter oral test was held from 28.1.2016 to 8.2.2016 and final result of the selection process was notified on 9.2.2016. 5. Notwithstanding the disqualification of the appellant in the written test itself, it is urged that since the appellant had successfully completed apprenticeship training with ONGC, as such, the respondent authorities are obliged to give suitable employment and, in this regard, necessary direction of this Court is warranted. It is urged that those who had done apprenticeship training should be judged separately and must not be placed at par with other candidates. It is further stated that since the appellant had secured 74% marks in the Industrial Training Institute (ITI) Examination, he stood as the better choice for selection and appointment. 6. It is urged that those who had done apprenticeship training should be judged separately and must not be placed at par with other candidates. It is further stated that since the appellant had secured 74% marks in the Industrial Training Institute (ITI) Examination, he stood as the better choice for selection and appointment. 6. The primary issue for determination is as to whether on having successfully completed apprenticeship training with ONGCL, there was any corresponding obligation on the part of ONGCL to give him suitable employment. This issue received exhaustive consideration by the learned Single Judge and the same was tested having regard to law laid down by the Supreme Court. The learned Single Judge having answered the issue against the appellant, the same is once again raised before us. 7. In U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Another vs. U.P. Parivahan Nigam Shishukhs Berozgar Sangh & Others, (1995) 2 SCC 1 , the Supreme Court while dealing with the claim of apprentice trainees to get employment following successful completion of training held, inter-alia, that other things being equal, such traninee should be given preference over direct recruits. The expression "other things being equal" was considered and interpreted by the Supreme Court in Public Service Commission, Uttaranchal vs. Jagdis Chandra Sing Bora, (2014) 8 SCC 644 . It was held that the natural meaning of the expression was that the candidates must have been subjected to the same selection process and that their inter-se merit is determined on the same criteria. In this connection it is seen from the available materials that as per clause 6(5) of the Modified Recruitment & Promotion Regulation, 1980, the suitability of a candidate has to be adjudged on the basis of written examination, practical test or interview or any combination of these. Written examination, however, is mandatory for all induction level posts of unionized and at E-1 level of Executive Cadre. Pleadings on behalf of ONGCL also go to show that preference is granted to a trained apprentice when other things are equal. However, in the present case, on the criteria of "other things being equal", it cannot be gainsaid that the appellant deserved preference over other candidates. 8. Pleadings on behalf of ONGCL also go to show that preference is granted to a trained apprentice when other things are equal. However, in the present case, on the criteria of "other things being equal", it cannot be gainsaid that the appellant deserved preference over other candidates. 8. In U.P. State Electricity Board vs. Shiv Mohan Singh and Another, (2004) 8 SCC 402 , the Supreme Court have held that the Apprentices Act, 1961 is a complete code by itself wherein the conditions of the apprentices, their tenure, the respective obligation of the employer and the trainee, are laid down. The Supreme Court held that the nature and character of an apprentice is only that of a trainee and that on the expiry of the training, there is no corresponding obligation on the part of the employer to employ him the exception being, if the term of the contract of apprenticeship lays down a condition that on successful completion of training, an employer will offer suitable employment. In the absence of such condition in the apprenticeship contract, an employer cannot be compelled to offer employment. The law so laid down was reiterated in Haryana Power Generation Corporation Limited vs. Harkesh Chand and others, (2013) 2 SCC 29 . In the said case it was held that an apprentice does not have statutory right to claim appointment and the employer is not under any statutory obligation to give employment. 9. Relief claimed by the appellant cannot be entertained. Firstly, he had voluntarily participated in the selection process and was governed by the terms and conditions stipulated in the Advertisement dated 2.7.2015. The selection methodology comprised of written test, to be the first in the selection process, followed by other tests, as stipulated therein. It also provided that candidates are to qualify at each stage separately and in aggregate. Further, candidates who qualify in the written test would be short-listed and called for other tests prior to personal interview. Apparently and without any dispute, the appellant could not qualify in the written test itself. Secondly, no case is laid out that that appellant's contract of apprenticeship contains any stipulation obligating ONGCL to offer him employment after successful completion of apprenticeship training. No case is also made out that the appellant was entitled to preference by virtue of his apprenticeship training over other candidates. 10. Secondly, no case is laid out that that appellant's contract of apprenticeship contains any stipulation obligating ONGCL to offer him employment after successful completion of apprenticeship training. No case is also made out that the appellant was entitled to preference by virtue of his apprenticeship training over other candidates. 10. In the facts and circumstances above, we are in respectful agreement of the findings and decision of the learned Single Judge. As a necessary corollary, the present appeal being devoid of merit, stands dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own cost.