S G KRISHNA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE appeals are filed against the order of the learned Single Judge in W. P. Nos. 26427 to 26431 of 2001 and connected cases dated 19th july, 2001, wherein the learned Single Judge has rejected the writ petitions observing that the petitioners have no right whatsoever to question the correctness or otherwise of the endorsement issued by the respondents dated 15-12-2000.

(2.) THE Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board (for short 'bwssb') in 1998, took a decision to fill up 120 posts of Sanitary Workers for the purpose of cleaning and maintenance of the various works of the Board and the Employment Exchange sent the names of 1,200 candidates as desired. The appellants-petitioners appeared for interview, and thereafter, the Selection Committee selected 120 persons inclusive of the appellants-petitioners but no appointment orders were issued. On the application of one S. G. Krishna, a Social Worker, an endorsement was issued by BWSSB on 15-12-2002 and the appellants-petitioners came to know that the BWSSB in its meeting held on 17-11-2000 had taken a decision not to fill up the said posts. The appellants-petitioners submitted representations dated 18-12-2000 and 22-12-2000 to the chairman and Managing Director of BWSSB but of no avail. The appellants-petitioners filed W. P. Nos. 3066 to 3115 of 2001. The learned Single Judge, on consideration found that the endorsement was not issued to the appellants-petitioners but to S. G. Krishna, a Social Worker, and the appellants-petitioners participation in the selection process by itself would not give them any right nor there was any obligation on the part of the respondent-Board to complete the selection process to complete selection and thereby rejected the writ petitions. Hence, these writ appeals.

(3.) THE main contention of the learned Counsels for the appellants is that the appellants who appeared for the interview and were selected two years ago have not been given appointment orders and therefore, the appellants herein pray that necessary directions be issued to the respondents to appoint them, by setting aside the order of the learned single Judge passed in W. P. Nos. 26427 to 26431 of 2001 and connected cases dated 19th July, 2001. He further contends that the learned Single judge has erred in not considering the case of the petitioners therein in the proper perspective. He relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Daily Rated Casual Labour employed under P and T department through Bhartiya Dak Tar Mazdoor Manch v Union of India and Others and Jacob M. Puthuparambil and Others v Kerala Water authority And Others. He also relied on the decision in the case of kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi v State of Uttar Pradesh and Others.