The main legal point established in the judgment is the applicability of the legal principles established in Umadevi's case to the appellant's claim for regularisation, considering the stipulations in the appointment letter and the respondent's argument regarding the availability of vacant posts and the requirement of due process for regularisation.

JUDGMENT :

Rai Chattopadhyay, J.

1. This appeal has been filed to challenge the order dated February 12, 2018 of the Hon’ble Single Bench, delivered in writ petition being W.P No. 13747 (w) of 2016. The prayer of the writ petitioner for regularisation of his service with the respondent Corporation was turned down by the Hon’ble Single Bench by dint of the said judgment.

2. The Court took notice of the fact of indigent financial condition of the respondent Corporation. The Court also took notice of the fact of availability of no vacancy with the respondent Corporation, as regards post in which the writ petitioner/appellant claimed to be regularised.

The Court had also noticed absence of any scheme in this regard. Thus, the Hon’ble Single Bench was of the opinion that the prayers in the writ petition could not be entertained. It further directed that in the event of any scheme being framed for recruitment afresh or regularisation in permanent post of drivers and conductors, the appellant’s case would be taken into consideration by the respondent Corporation. The appellant, being aggrieved with the observation and finding of the Hon’ble Single Judge has preferred the instant appeal.

3. Before going into the arguments of the respective parties, it is necessary that the factual aspects, leading to filing of the case, be considered in a nut shell. The appellant/writ petitioner joined as an “extra trainee route driver” with the respondent Corporation, on May 22, 1992. However, his dissatisfactory performance made him to be struck off from the role of the respondent Corporation for some time thereafter. Subsequently he was again appointed on purely temporary basis in the post of ‘driver-cum-conductor’ vide a letter of appointment dated August 19, 2003. He joined afresh on September 1, 2003. Since then the appellant has been serving the respondent Corporation with utmost honesty, integrity and sincerity. After completion of initial training period, he was engaged as a daily rated ‘driver-cum-conductor’, with effect from March 7, 2004. He was allowed a daily allowances of Rs. 210/-with effect from March 2, 2004. The appellant has been remunerated by daily wages on ‘no work no pay’ basis.

The appellant has been aggrieved that in spite of his sincere and satisfactory continuous service for about ten years, the respondent Corporation has never considered his candidature for absorption against a substantive vacant post, allegedly in spite of availability of post and with ulterior motives.

Written representations made by the appellant and that duly forwarded by the Depot Manager, Salt Lake Depot to the competent authority, i.e, Managing Director of the respondent Corporation have gone in vain. This had paved way for the appellant to seek redress before this Court. His first writ petition was Writ Petition No. 16918 (w) of 2013. The same was disposed of on June 27, 2013, directing the respondent authority to consider the appellant’s representations for absorption and dispose of the same by dint of a reasoned order.

Subsequently the respondent authority passed order dated December 12, 2013, thereby rejecting appellant’s prayer for absorption and regularisation.

The second writ petition of the appellant was W.P.No. 14486 (w) of 2014, the same was disposed of vide order dated June 10, 2014. The Court had passed order as follows:-

“Since it is evident that the petitioner has worked for a considerable number of years as a daily-rated worker and the petitioner has not been afforded the courtesy of being absorbed despite the letter of engagement, W.P. No. 14486 (W) of 2014 is disposed of by directing the Managing Director of CSTC to ensure that the petitioner and others similarly placed as the petitioner who have rendered services in excess of 10 years as daily-rated Drivers-cum-Conductors are given preference over other candidates in the process of recruitment under the JNAURM scheme subject to such 3 persons otherwise fulfilling the guidelines and criteria