JUDGMENT D.K. Seth, J.
1. The petitioners were given training as vaccinatora. Admittedly, there are 14 vacant posts of vaccinators in Nagar Nigam, Kanpur. The petitioners claim that the said 14 posts were advertised and the petitioners participated in the selection. But no selection was made nor result of the said selection declared and the petitioners were not given appointment. Therefore, the petitioners had filed a writ petition which was disposed of on 8.11.1993 by directing the respondents to consider the petitioners' representation. Accordingly, their representation was considered by the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari, who instead of passing an order applying his own mind, had only endorsed the note or report prepared by the subordinate. Against such rejection of their representation by the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari, the petitioners further preferred a representation before the Commissioner, which was rejected by an order dated 23.4.1996 contained in Annexure-9 to the writ petition. The order of Mukhya Nagar Adhikari is Annexure-8 dated 1.5.1995 passed on the report dated 29.11.1994 (Annexure-7).
2. Mr. V. Singh. learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari had never applied its mind and had only endorsed the report prepared by his subordinate and, therefore, on account of non-application of mind, the said order cannot be sustained. The Commissioner having placed reliance on the report of Mukhya Nagar Adhikari. the order passed by the Commissioner is also without any basis and. therefore, the same cannot be supported. He further contends that since there are 14 posts vacant and financial aid Is being received by the Nagar Nigam from the Government even against said 14 vacant posts, therefore, it is incumbent upon the Nagar Nigam to give appointment to the petitioners against said 14 posts.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
4. Admittedly, the posts of vaccinators were meant for vaccinating the people within the municipal limits against small pox. Admittedly, small pox is completely eradicated from the territory of the Union of India. Thus, there is no work left for the vaccinators. It is also apparent from the records produced as annexures to the writ petition, that small pox having been eradicated completely and no work having been left for the vaccinators. the existing vaccinators out of 44 posts except 14 vacancies, are being utilised for maintaining registers of birth and death. This fact has not been disputed by Mr. V. Singh. learned counsel for the petitioners. He also stated at the bar that 29 vaccinators now in service are discharging duties of maintaining birth and death register within the municipality and, therefore, he claims that the petitioners may also be recruited and be given similar work.
5. When there is no necessity to employ vaccinators even if there are vacancies, in such circumstances, this Court is not empowered to compel the Nagar Nigam to recruit vaccinators or fill up the remaining vacant posts. This Court has no jurisdiction to compel the employer to fill up the posts even If the same remain vacant. The petitioner having been given training, they cannot claim that they must be given appointment as soon vacancies are existing. By reason of such training, the petitioners did not acquire indefeasible right to claim appointment. It is only a right to be considered if recruitment is made. In the present case, since the Nagar Nigam is not making any recruitment though it had advertised the posts in order to make appointment, but having decided not to make the recruitment, this Court cannot compel it to undertake the recruitment and employ the petitioners even though the Nagar Nigam does not require any such services. There is nothing to indicate that as to how a person who has obtained training as vaccinator could compel the Nagar Nigam to give appointment for the purpose of discharging duties of registering birth and death.
6. The question that a report was prepared by the subordinate, does not appear to be a sound proposition as has been sought to be made by Mr. V. Singh. All reports are prepared at the bottom by clerks and placed before the appropriate authority along with records. If the authority agrees with such report, in that event, it endorses the same whereas in case of disagreement with the report, the authority prepares its own report if he thinks fit. There is no compulsion on the authority that after examining the record even if it agrees with the report prepared by Its subordinate, that he should prepare his own report. From Annexure-8, it appears on the basis of such report, the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari had taken his own decision which is apparent from the order dated 1.5.1995 where he had given reasons. Therefore, it was not a total non-application of mind which could erode the value of the said order. Then again, the order contained in Annexure-9 passed by the Commissioner is a detailed order giving detailed reasons. The notings contain the fact of the representation made and the situation as stands. I have gone through the order passed by the learned Commissioner and the reasons given therein. It does not appear that there is any infirmity in the said order. After applying his mind, he has passed a reasoned order. I do not find any reason to disagree with the reasons given therein. There being no necessity to the Nagar Nigam to employ vaccinators in the absence of any work, the Nagar Nigam cannot be compelled to employ vaccinators simply because they were trained as vaccinators even on account of existence of vacancies.
7. As observed earlier, I do not find any reason to disagree with the view taken by the Commissioner.
8. The writ petition therefore, falls and is accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.