ORDER :

This Writ Petition is filed for the following relief:

“…to (a) call for the records pertaining to the proceedings dt.07.01.2018 issued by the 2nd respondent Corporation and set aside as unjust and illegal,

(b) Consequently, direct the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners as HMV drivers from the date of their eligibility / appointment with all consequential benefits i.e. fixation of salary and all other service benefits; by issuance of Writ of Mandamus and pass …”

2. It has been contended by the petitioners that the present Writ Petition is the second round of litigation between the parties and the same is preferred aggrieved by the proceedings dated 07.01.2018 issued by the 2nd respondent Corporation through which their claim for regularization of services as Heavy Motor Vehicle Drivers was rejected under compliance of the orders of this Court dt.15.11.2018 in Writ Petition 24198 of 2010 (earlier round of litigation).

2.1 It is further contended by the petitioners that pursuant to the notification issued by the 2nd respondent Corporation in December 2004 to fill up various posts on a contract basis, one of such vacancies in the post of the heavy motor vehicle driver, was also notified and 70 vacancies were available. The qualification prescribed in the notification was that one must possess a driving license to drive a heavy passenger motor vehicle or heavy goods vehicle and must have 5 years of experience. The petitioners have applied for the same and were employed on 02.04.2005 on a contract basis by the 2nd respondent Corporation with a consolidated salary of Rs.7,060/- per month.

2.2 It is further contended by the petitioners that before the disposal of the earlier Writ Petition, neither the Government nor the Corporation took any steps in increasing the cadre strength despite the 2nd respondent issuing a letter to the 1st respondent with a proposal to approve cadre strength vide Lr. No; APTDC/Admn/P1/61/2008 dt.21.12.2008 and therefore, petitioners were allowed to function on contract basis.

2.3. It is further contended by the petitioners that the 1st respondent vide G.O. Rt.No.723 dt.05.08.2011 constituted a three-member committee to formulate a scheme for the benefit of contract employees, especially for regularization. On 05.04.2012, an Implementation report was submitted vide Assurance No.328 that the decision of the Committee is under process. However, no action was taken in any manner. Subsequently, in the year 2013, the 1st respondent vide G.O.Rt.No.971 dt.10.12.2013 constituted another committee with five members with regard to regularization of the petitioners and similarly placed persons and sought a detailed report with recommendations to be given to the Government within a period of three months. Unfortunately, nothing was done in a positive direction.

2.4. It is further contended by the petitioners that the petitioners earlier filed W.P.No. 24198 of 2010 before this Court seeking directions to be given to the 2nd respondent Corporation to consider the petitioners’ representations in regularising their services as they have put in more than 5 years of service for the Corporation. This Court vide its Order dt.15.11.2018 directed the 2nd respondent Corporation to consider the case of the petitioners for regularization of their services in view of the decision of the Apex Court in State of Karnataka vs Uma Devi, (2006) 4 SCC 1 and the same was complied with by the 2nd respondent Corporation vide proceedings dt.07.01.2018 by rejecting the request of the petitioners by not regularising their services. Hence, the present Writ Petition.

3. Respondents filed a counter by contending that the reasons assigned in the impugned proceedings dt.07.01.2018 are justified in the circumstances of the case. The decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Uma Devi’s case relates to directives to take steps for the regularisation of eligible employees as a onetime measure i.e the services of irregularly appointed