Court No. - 62
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 29012 of 2002 Petitioner :- Musafir Respondent :- Transport Commissioner/Addl. Transport Commissioner & Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- S.S. Tripathi,A.P. Tewari,C.S. Srivastava,K.P.S. Yadav,P.S. Sharma,S.P.Yadav,Sudhansu Srivastava,V.Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Rajiv Joshi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.
This writ petition has been filed for seeking writ of mandamus directing the respondent concerned to make appointment on the petitioner on the post of Steno-typist pursuant to a number of recommendations made in favour of petitioner by the Assistant Regional Transport Officer Sonebhadra and other Higher Authorities as well as on the basis of last recommendation dated 18.11.1999 and also considering the ten years past services rendered by the petitioner in the office of Assistant Regional Transport Officer.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that official of the State Road Transport Authority has issued the recommendation in favour of the petitioner for appointment, but the respondent authority has failed to appoint the petitioner. It is further contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was working for the authority, therefore, he is entitled for absorption.
The petitioner is seeking appointment in the Government Department, but no appointment letter has been issued to the petitioner even the petitioner has failed to apprise the fact that there were any advertisement issued in pursuance of that petitioner has already been selected.
It is relevant to note here that earlier the petitioner has filed Writ Petition No. 30574 of 1996, which was disposed of vide order dated 24.6.1996 with the direction to the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner by means of speaking order within a period of two months. Subsequently, vide detailed order no. 4838E/96-1927E/Writ 96 dated 29.11.1996, representation of the petitioner was considered and rejected.
Against that order, petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 856 of 1997, which was dismissed in limine vide judgement dated 10.1.1997. The order rejecting the representation of the petitioner has become final after the dismissal of the writ petition. Even though, he again filed Writ Petition No. 2315 of 2000 for regularization of his service, in which the petitioner was directed to make representation and the respondent authorities were directed to decide the said representation within specified time. Subsequently, vide impugned order, representation of the petitioner was rejected.
It is clear cut finding in the impugned order that the petitioner was never appointed on the post of clerk/typist, in fact, he was working as typist outside the campus of the Regional Transport Office and he is making his claim on the said basis. Earlier his representation was dismissed vide order dated 29.11.1996, which was affirmed by this Court in the writ petition. Now, petitioner again filed writ petition challenging the said order.
I have perused the record and find that in absence of any appointment letter or advertisement, the petitioner cannot be absorbed in Government Service. The claim of the petitioner has already been considered in detail vide impugned order. There is no illegality or infirmity in the same.
Writ petition lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 29.3.2018 Noman