JUDGMENT Rakesh Tiwari, J.
1. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
This writ petition has been filed for the following relief:-
(a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 10.6.2005 passed by respondent No. 4 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition;
(b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on the post of driver in pursuance of order dated 12.5.2005 passed by this Court in pursuance of advertisement dated 31.3.2005;
(c) Issue any other suitable writ, order or direction which this Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case; and
(d) Award cost of petition to the petitioner.
2. By the impugned order dated 10.6.2005 the application of the petitioner for appointment as driver in the U.P.S.R.T.C. has been cancelled. The order of cancellation reads as under:-
^^dk;kZy; {ks=h; izcU/kd mRrj izns'k jkT; lMd ifjogu fxe] xksj[kiqj A i= [email protected]@1&[email protected]&p;u @ [email protected]@fn- 10&6&2005 Jh eatj vyh pkyd ¼lafonk½ firk Jh 'kyhe valkjh ekuuh;
mPp U;k;ky; }kjk fjV ;kfpdk la- [email protected] veu flag o vU; ouke ifjogu fuxe esa ikfjr fu.kZ; fnukad 12&5&2005 ds vuqØe esa fnukad 15&6&2005 dks vk;ksftr gksus okys pkyd in ds VsLV gsrq vkids }kjk izsf"kr vkosnu i= fuEu dj.ko'k vLohÑr fd;k tkrk gS A 1&fnukad 28&10&2004 dks izdkf'kr foKkiu ds rgr pkyd VsLV esa lfEefyr fd;s tk pqds gSa A 2&fnukad 28&10&2004 dks izdkf'kr foKKiu ds rgr izsf"kr vkosnu i= ds lkFk layXu ykbZlsUl vuqi;qDr ik;k x;k Fkk A 3& vkosnu i= ds lkFk fu/kkZfjr VsLV 'kqYd layXu ugha gS A 4&fnukad 20&10&2004 dks izdkf'kr foKkiu ds rgr vki vksoj,t ugha Fks A g- viBuh;
lgk;d {sk=h; izcU/kd ¼dk½ @ {ks=h; izcU/k mRrj izns'k jkT; lMd ifjogu fuxe xksj[kiqj A**
3. It appears from the record that a large number of writ petitions had been filed earlier by the contract drivers challenging the advertisement for appointment of contract drivers against permanent post from time to time some of which have already been decided. The appointment of contract was necessitated due to the fact that ban was imposed by the State Government on regular appointment.
4. Earlier a bunch of writ petitions was decided by this Court. Writ Petition No. 48316 of 2004 was treated as the leading case which was disposed of vide judgment dated 22.2.2005 with certain directions. The issue in this case as well as in the earlier cases was with regard to the rights of the petitioner who were engaged as drivers by the Corporation on the basis of contract and had worked for a considerable period of time.
5. Consequently, the ban was lifted and the posts of drivers were sanctioned by the State Government on 25.10.2004. Thereafter the Corporation issued advertisement on 28.10.2004 inviting applications from the eligible candidates for filling up the posts of drivers. The petitioners were aggrieved and claimed that they had right of regularization as well as relaxation in age etc. Vide judgment dated 22.2.2005 in W.P. No. 48316 of 2004 the Court had directed the respondents to look into the grievance of the petitioners. Consequently a Joint Committee of the State Government and the Corporation was constituted to consider the question of relaxation in age and/or preference to be granted to the contract drivers within the ambit of U.P.S.R.T.C. Employees (Other than Officers) Service Regulation 1981. The Committee submitted its report on 14.3.2005 which was forwarded to the Principal Secretary, Transport Department, Government of U.P. as well as to the Managing Director of the Corporation. Subsequently, the Corporation issued advertisement dated 31.3.2005 inviting applications from amongst the contract drivers also be considered for appointment on the post of drivers in the Corporation.
6. Several writ petitions were filed challenging the report of the Joint Committee and the terms of the advertisement the petitioners filed which were decided by judgment dated 12.5.2005 of which Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 28388 of 2005 Aman Singh and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors. was the leading case. The Court had issued certain directions. The operative portion of the judgment is as under:-
This Court has, however, to balance the equities between the parties with the object to do substantive justice in the matter. The total number of the contract drivers who were working with the Corporation prior to the creation of posts were possibly a few thousand. As per the statement made at the bar by Sri Sharma, from amongst those contract drivers who were eligible and had applied pursuant to the advertisement dated 28.10.2004, a few hundred have already been declared qualified in the selection process already held. Probably a large number of contract drivers would further become eligible in terms of this judgment, who would be entitled to participate in the selection process. On considering these circumstances, in my view, it would be just and proper if 400 (four hundred) post of drivers are kept vacant for being considered for appointment along with those who have already applied earlier. Thus, in the interest of justice, it is directed that the Corporation be allowed to appoint 1000 (one thousand) drivers on the basis of merit as per the selection held in pursuance of the advertisement dated 28.10.2004 (and also the subsequent advertisement dated 31.3.2005, as some contract drivers have applied pursuant to this advertisement also).
In the light of the above, the following directions are issued:
1. Out of the 1400 posts of drivers already advertised, the Corporation is allowed to appoint 1000 (one thousand) drivers on the basis of merit as per the selection already held in pursuance of the advertisements already issued.
2. If the Corporation requires the services of drivers on contract basis, it may take the services of the petitioners and other similarly situated persons, on the same terms as were there prior to 25.10.2004, subject to the condition that the Corporation shall be at liberty to make the statutory deductions, even though no such bond may be furnished by the contract drivers so engaged.
3. The Corporation may issue a fresh advertisement, preferably within 10 (ten) days from today, in which it shall be specified that those contract drivers whose contracts were alive on the date of the sanction of posts of drivers by the State Government, i.e. 25.10.2004, shall be entitled to apply, provided that on the initial date of recruitment on the basis of contract, they were within the age of recruitment at that time. The said advertisement shall also specify the age prescribed by the Corporation from time to time, from the date since they started engaging drivers on contract till 28.10.2004.
4. At least ten days time shall be given to the contract drivers to make such application.
5. It is also provided that the contract drivers making such applications shall not be required to furnish any certificate from any authority of the Corporation to show that their contracts were alive on 25.10.2004. However, the applicants shall have to give an undertaking to the effect that their contracts were alive on 25.10.2004 and also that they were within the prescribed age as on the date of their initial recruitment. The Corporation shall thereafter verify the authenticity of the undertaking given by the contract drivers making such application.
6. If any application is rejected, the Corporation shall communicate the same to the candidate, along with the reasons for such rejection, at least three days before the final list of candidates to be considered is prepared. Such final list shall be prepared preferable within a week or ten days of the last date of submission of the applications and the selection process may commence immediately thereafter.
7. The results of the remaining 400 posts shall be declared alongwith all other candidates who were also considered in response to the earlier advertisements.
This Judgment and Order shall apply, not only to the petitioners but all other contract drivers who may not have even approached this Court.
With the aforesaid observations/directions these writ petitions stand disposed of. No order as to cost.
Let a certified copy of this judgment and Order be given to the learned counsel for the parties by 16.5.2005, on payment of usual charges.
Sd. Hon.Vineet Saran, J.
12.5.2005
7. It appears that when the Corporation again advertised the post for permanent drivers in pursuance of the order and judgment dated 12,5.2005 the petitioner also applied the Corporation rejected his application on the ground that he is not over age which is under challenge in the present writ petition.
8. The impugned order is assailed on the ground that the petitioner was selected in 1996 in the Corporation and is within age as required by the advertisement as such he is also entitled to be appointed against sanctioned post. It is submitted that the Corporation has not followed the directions given in judgment dated 12.5.2005 by this Court and had rejected the application of the petitioner on erroneous, untenable and non-existent grounds, hence the impugned order is liable to be quashed and that though it is stated in the counter affidavit filed by the Corporation that the application of the petitioner was considered and test was held on 27.7.2005 and the name of the petitioner was mention at sl. No. 16 in the list of candidates dated, 16.7.2005 the correct facts are that the petitioner was not given any communication or notice about the test said to have been held on 27.7.2005. Thus the averments made in the counter affidavit are wrong and in correct. The counsel for the petitioner has vehemently urged that notice given through the publication on the Notice Board does not amount to proper notice in the eyes of law.
9. The counsel for the respondents submits that in pursuance of the judgment dated 12.5.2005 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 28388 of 2005 the Head Quarter of the respondents Corporation vide letter No. 3575 dated 27.5.2005 directed all the Regional Managers regarding recruitment of drivers amongst the candidates who have worked on contract basis in the Corporation and have become overage. It is stated in the aforesaid letter that an advertisement in this regard has already been issued on 22.5.2005 in the leading Newspapers. The counsel for the respondents then submits that the petitioner applied pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement for his appointment on the post of driver but his application was rejected by the Screening Committee as he was not overage. He has drawn the attention of this Court towards advertisement dated 31st March, 2005 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) wherein it is mentioned that the upper age limit for the reserve quota candidates shall be 40 years. The petitioner belongs to reserve category, as such his age limit was up to 40 years. The attention of the Court has again been drawn towards Annexure-1 to the writ petition which is a certificate filed by the petitioner showing his date of birth as 7.8.1968 and has urged that it is clear from the certificate that the candidature of the petitioner was not within the ambit of advertisement dated 31st March, 2005 being not overage, as such his application was rightly rejected by the authority concerned and he was communicated vide letter dated 10.6.2005.
10. The counsel for the respondents next submits that pursuant to another letter dated 21.5.2005 issued by the Head Quarter the application of the petitioner was considered but the petitioner did not participate in the test on the prescribed date i.e. on 27.7.2005 which is evident from Annexure-CA1, though his name was mention at sl. No. 16 in the list of candidates dated 16.7.2005 after screening.
11. Since in the advertisement it was clearly mentioned that the medium of information to the candidates about the date of test was only the Notice board, it was the duty of the petitioner to have participated in the test after information about the test was published on the Notice board. It is lastly, urged that the petitioner himself did not appear in the test which was held after 10-12 days after publication of information on the Notice board inspite of the information and the Respondents Corporation is in no way responsible for his non selection.
12. After hearing the counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record I find that it is not in dispute that the petitioner knew about the date of selection test scheduled to be held on 27.7.2005 and did not appear for whatsoever reasons he may had.
13. The petitioner in the circumstances was permitted to apply for the test in pursuance of advertisement which was for contract drivers who had become overage while working in the Corporation but he did not appear in the examination on 27.7.2005 even though his name was included in the list of candidates at sl. No. 16.
14. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner knew all the informations including the schedule of test for appointment of contract drivers through Notice board of the Regional Office. It appears from the record that selection from the candidates who had appeared on the aforesaid date in the test was made on 27.7.2005. In the circumstances, it can not be said that there was no proper information regarding the test on the scheduled date. If the petitioner did not appear in the test, he is himself responsible for his own folly.
15. For the reasons stated above, no interference is required in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is accordingly, dismissed.
16. No order as to costs.