KAMLESH KUMAR SHUKLA Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) The petitioner is a trained apprentice. He claims appointment on the basis of decision of the Apex Court reported in 1995 JT (2) SC 26 : (1995) 1 UPLBEC 320 (SC), U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Anr. v. U.P. Parivahan Nigam Shishukhs Berozgar Sangh and Ors.

(3.) The writ petition is finally disposed of with the direction that that respondents shall consider the question of appointment of the petitioner on some suitable post in view of the eligibility and qualifications of the petitioner in the light of the aforesaid observations of the Supreme Court provided the selection for recruitment is likely to take place in near future.