The contention of the petitioner is that in pursuance of the advertisement in the year 1981 for the post of Conductor, the petitioner applied. The petitioner has been selected by the order dated 7.6.1982 passed by respondent no. 3. He was sent for training of 15 days. He completed the training of 15 days but the appointment letter has not been issued. When the petitioner came to know that his juniors have been appointed, the petitioner filed representation claiming his appointment. When the representation has not been decided, the petitioner filed writ petition which has been disposed of vide order dated 3.12.1992 with the direction to decide the representation. When the petitioner has not heard anything about the disposal of his representation, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.
Counter affidavit has been filed annexing the copy of the order dated 1.10.1994 by which the representation of the petitioner has been decided.
The petitioner filed amendment application challenging the said order. The said amendment application has been allowed on 26.8.2002.
In the counter affidavit, it is stated that the said list has been cancelled by the Headquarter of the Corporation. However, it was again revived in the year 1987 and by the letter no. 4196 dated 20.6.1987 the petitioner was informed that if he is interested to join the duty to join it on or before 24.6.1987 but he did not join the duty. Again letter no. 4832 dated 8.7.1987 and letter dated 27.1.1988 were sent to the petitioner asking him to join the duty but the petitioner did not join the duty. It is stated that as per Regulation 20 (5) of the U.P. State Transport Corporation Service Manual, 1981, the list prepared under sub-regulation (4) shall remain alive for one year from the date it is finalized by the Selection Committee or till the next selection whichever is earlier. According to the respondent, since the said select list did not survive, the petitioner could not be appointed. In para-5 of the rejoinder affidavit it is stated that so called letters or reminders were never served upon the petitioner either upon his address as mentioned in para under reply of the affidavit or at his home address. Therefore, the petitioner could not respond the letters.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, it is necessary to get the reply from the respondent on two issues:
1- Whether the alleged letters/notices mentioned in the impugned order, referred hereinabove, have been served upon the petitioner or not, if served, what is the evidence in this regard.
2- When the select list prepared in the year 1981-82 was cancelled and when it has been revived. Regulation 20 (5) of the U.P. State Transport Corporation Service Manual, 1981 provides that the list prepared under sub-regulation (4) shall remain alive for one year from the date it is finalized by the Selection Committee or till the next selection whichever is earlier then under, which authority of law it was declared cancelled and after one year it has been revived. The proper course appears to be that when the said list was dead, the fresh process of selection should have been initiated. In the circumstances, why the entire selection made in pursuance of the list prepared in the year 1981-82 may not be cancelled.
The respondent is directed to give the reply of the aforesaid queries within three weeks. Counter and rejoinder affidavits are not on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner has provided one copies of the counter and rejoinder affidavit, the same have been placed on record.
Learned counsel for both the parties have no objection in case if the writ petition is being decided on the basis of the alleged copies.
However, office is directed to trace out the counter and rejoinder affidavits, which the learned counsel for the parties claimed to have been filed, and place it on record.
List for further hearing on 31.10.2012.
Order Date :- 24.9.2012 OP