In this petition the petitioner has prayed for a direction to regularise the services of the petitioner and to absorb him in regular post and to declare him as permanent employee of the respondent No.3.
2.It is not in dispute that the petitioner herein was one of the petitioners who had approached this Court by filing Special Civil Application No. 4258 of 1998. The said petition came to be disposed of by an order dated 30.3.2000, wherein the learned Single Judge was pleased to direct that the cases of the petitioners shall be considered in accordance with the circulars and the Recruitment Rules and the procedure applicable to the Tribunal for filling up the posts in question. It was further directed that the respondents shall consider the case of the petitioners for filling up the posts on regular basis. Subsequently, one more petition came to be filed being Special Civil Application No. 1095 of 2002, wherein also by order dated 22.6.2004 this Court directed that the recruitment process which is already commenced shall be completed in accordance with law and that the authority shall declare the result of the interviews held and shall appoint the persons found to be suitable and selected, keeping in mind the reservation policy.
3.In view of the above directions of this Court, and especially in view of the fact that the petitioner herein was also a party to Special Civil Application No. 4258 of 1998, the petitioner's request for being regularised and being absorbed as a permanent employee merely on the ground that he had worked for an extended period on adhoc basis cannot be accepted.
4.It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that though the selection process is over, the appointments are being made without declaring the result of the interviews conducted by the respondents. In response to the notice issued by this Court, learned AGP Mr. Hasurkar has appeared for the respondents. Under the instructions of the Registrar of the Gujarat Public Works Contract Dispute Arbitration Tribunal, it is stated that the selection process was undertaken and pursuant to the interviews conducted, those who are found suitable have been communicated about their selection and their appointments are being made. It is submitted that the petitioner was also considered along with other eligible candidates, but he did not find place in the select list.
5.Under the circumstances, the prayer made in the present petition cannot be entertained. However, the respondent No.1 shall communicate the names of the selected candidates to the petitioner. Since the petitioner has not challenged the selection process, it is not necessary to examine the same in the present petition.
6.With these observations, the petition is disposed of. Notice is discharged. Interim relief stands vacated.
(Akil Kureshi, J.) */Mohandas