ALOKE CHAKRABARTI, J.

( 1 ) THIS writ petition was filed challenging the termination order a copy whereof has been annexed as Annexure-3 to the supplementary affidavit.

( 2 ) THE contention of the petitioners is that the respondent No. 1 directed making selection and appointment of candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled tribes on the posts of drivers in Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as corporation] and pursuant thereto, advertisement was published in two newspapers inviting applications from suitable candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Petitioners made applications and all formalities were completed and were selected by a selection committee for appointment. Upon receiving appointment letters, petitioners joined their respective posts in the month of September, 1997 and continued to discharge duties. Show-cause notices were issued to the petitioners to which petitioners submitted replies. Originally the writ petition was filed apprehending termination order. Thereafter a supplementary affidavit was filed stating that termination orders had been issued and the same were also challenged.

( 3 ) RESPONDENTS filed counter-affidavit stating that although very small number of vacancies were available but large number of appointments were made in the posts of drivers. Contention has also been made against such appointments stating that they are in violation of the provisions of regulation 19 of the U. P. State Road Transport Corporation Employees (other than Officers)Service Regulations. 1981 inasmuch as such recruitments could not be made without notifying the Employment Exchange. It has been contended that there were no posts against which petitioners were appointed and there was no budget to pay salary to them. It has been contended that in the above factual background the termination orders were rightly passed.

( 4 ) THE petitioners filed rejoinder-affidavit.

( 5 ) HEARD Mr. V. M. Zaidi, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. V. M. Sahai, learned counsel for the respondents.

( 6 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioners contended that petitioners were appointed against existing vacancies as it was decided by the Corporation that requisite number of reserved candidates had not been appointed in the posts of drivers and after the change of the government, on change of policy it has been found that there were no sufficient vacancies and in such background termination orders had been issued. Reliance was placed on the facts disclosed in the counter-affidavit for showing that on a changed circumstance impugned orders had been passed.

( 7 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondents contended that no change of policy took place and the strength of drivers for on road bus remained the same and only on detection of a wrong calculation as regards vacancies for reserved candidates, termination orders had to be issued in respect of such appointments against non-existing posts. Learned counsel for the respondents also relied on Regulation 19 and contended that petitioners appointments were in violation of the said Regulation as Employment Exchange had not been notified.

( 8 ) RELIANCE was placed on the law decided in the case of Ashwani Kumar and others v. State of bihar and others, JT 1997 (1) SC 243. as also on the judgment of this Court in the case of tarkeshwar Mishra and others v. Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad and others in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 40550 of 1997 decided on 3. 2. 1998. a copy whereof has been annexed at annexure-5 to the counter-affidavit. Further, reference was made to the cases of State of rajasthan v. Rajendra Kumar Rawat and others, 1989 Suppl. (2) SCC 268 ; Union of India and others v. K. V. Vijeesh, (1996) 3 SCC 139 and Commissioner, Corporation of Madras v. Madras corporation Teachers Mandram and others, (1997) 1 SCC 253. for the purpose of contention that the petitioners rightly could be denied appointments as in fact pos

Click Here to Read the rest of this document