Writ Petition Dismissed: Selection of Heavy Equipment Operators Declared Infructuous

Background

A writ petition was filed challenging the selection of respondents 2 to 6 as Heavy Equipment Operators Grade-B pursuant to a notification dated 21.11.2012. The petitioners sought to quash the notification and sought directions for their own appointment and regularization of service.

Legal Question

The main legal question before the court was whether the selection process was vitiated by extraneous considerations and whether the petitioners were entitled to the reliefs sought.

Arguments Presented

The petitioners argued that the selection process was illegal and that they should have been appointed instead of the respondents. They also argued that the 2nd petitioner was entitled to regularization of service as he had been working in the post since 17.4.2014.

The respondents did not file any counter-arguments as the court had not passed any interim order in the petition.

Court's Analysis and Reasoning

The court observed that the main prayer in the petition, to quash the selection notification, had become infructuous as no interim order had been passed. The court declined to make any observations on the petitioners' claim that there were vacancies in the company and that they could be accommodated.

The court directed the petitioners to submit appropriate representations to the company if they had any grievances regarding their appointment. The company was directed to consider the representations in accordance with law and after giving notice to the petitioners.

Decision

The court dismissed the writ petition as infructuous and directed the petitioners to pursue their grievances through appropriate representations to the company.