ANUP KUMAR KANDWAL Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of this writ petition, moved under Article 226 of the Constitution of India petitioners have sought mandamus commanding the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to regularise their services against the posts of drivers.

(2.) Brief facts of the case as narrated in the writ petition are that the petitioners are working as jeep drivers in Tehsil Karn Prayag and Pokhri in the district Chamoli. Petitioner No. 1 was appointed as jeep driver on May 8, 1999. However, after two months respondents stopped paying salary to the petitioner No. 1 but continued to take work from him. It is alleged that he was assured to be paid the arrears of salary after his services are regularised. Petitioner No. 2 was also appointed as jeep driver on temporary basis w.e.f. June 8, 1999 in the pay scale of Rs. 3,050-4,590. His salary too was stopped after two months and he was also assured that arrears of salary will be paid after his services are regularised. It is alleged in the writ petition that there are 6 vacancies of drivers available in the Tehsils and Collectorate of Chamoli. It is further alleged that the petitioners are qualified as well as have sufficient experience for their appointment on said posts. The petitioners, alleged that instead of regularising their services, the District Magistrate appointed respondent No. 4 Shri Chiranjee Lal as driver. However, vide order dated July 23, 2002, petitioners were ordered to be engaged on daily wages on payment of Rs. 58 per day while earlier they were drawing salary of Rs. 3,050-4,590. On November 22, 2003, ignoring the services of the petitioners, the respondents advertised 5 temporary posts of drivers to deprive the petitioners their regularisation. Though the petitioners also applied for the appointment against said advertised posts but interview which was scheduled to be held on February 20 and 21, 2004, was postponed without assigning any reason. Alleging that the petitioners are being deprived of their regularisation as drivers, the present writ petition has been filed by them.

(3.) In the counter-affidavit which has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 4, it has been stated that petitioner No. 1 was appointed as driver only for 35 days and the petitioner No. 2 was appointed as driver only for 89 days. Thereafter their services stood terminated as their services were required only during the yatra season in the district. It is further stated in the counter-affidavit that respondent No 4. i.e. Sri Chiranjee Lal was appointed under Uttaranchal Government Department Drivers Service Rules, 2003 as he belongs to Scheduled Caste category. However, it is admitted that petitioners were engaged on daily wages on contract basis on Rs. 58 per day w. e.f. July 23, 2002. This appointment being contractual, provides no claim to the petitioners. It is also not disputed by the respondents that vacant posts of drivers were advertised and the selection process got held up. But the reason has not been mentioned in the counter-affidavit.