ARVIND KUMAR Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE ETAWAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) R. B. Misra, J. Heard Sri A. P. N. Giri, learned counsel for the petitioner in both the petitions as well as Sri M. C. Chaturvedi, Addl. Chief Standing Counsel, alongwith Sri S. S. Sharma, Sri Deepak Sharma and Km. Enakshi Sharma, learned Standing Counsel and Sri Ranjit Saxena, learned counsel for the respondents.

(2.) IN the first writ petition No. 18347 of 1996 the petitioner has prayed quashing the impugned selection of the driver should be cancelled and petitioner service be regularised and treating the petitioner as a driver and a direction to the respondents to pay the salary the petitioner since 26-4-1993. IN the second writ petition No. 19607 of 1996 the prayer has been made quashing the order dated 7-6-1996 (Annexure-13) whereby 30 persons have been appointed to the different posts including the post of driver, chowkidar, mali, sweeper and class-IV employee. According to the petitioner he gave an application on 20-4-1993 before the District Magistrate Etawah and the District Magistrate has indicated that the applicant should be appointed on ad hoc basis in Auraiya Tehsil. According to the petitioner he has worked for some time but he was not paid the salary and treating him as ad hoc appointed by order dated 25-4-1993 of the then District Magistrate, Etawah, the petitioner prayed for regularisation to the post of driver. It appears that certain posts of Class-IV including the post of mali, sweeper, chowkidar and driver who have been filled up. For that purpose notice was pasted on the notice board and conveyed to the employment exchange, so that, other candidates may know the vacancies and a large number of candidates from open market participated in the selection/interview and the selection committee constituted for the purpose and selection committee has recommended the case in respect of 30 persons on June 7, 1996. This order is under challenge in writ petition No. 19607 of 1996 by saying that the petitioner's services was to be regularised treating him to have been appointed on ad hoc basis and he was not given prior notice of participation in the said selection. However, when he participated he was not declared successful. IN these circumstances the above two writ petitions have been filed. The counter-affidavit on behalf of the respondents have been filed in both the petitions.