MANOJ KUMAR CHAUDHARY Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard Shri Pankaj Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Radha Mohan Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the Warehousing Corporation-respondents no. 2,3 and 4 and the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent no. 1.

(2.) By this writ petition the petitioners have challenged the advertisement dated 13.11.2008 and also prayed for a mandamus directing the State Government to take a decision on the resolution of the Board of Directors dated 9.7.2007. It is submitted by Shri Pankaj Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner that the Board of Directors has forwarded its resolution and it is in this view of the matter that he has sought the relief no. 2 in the writ petition.

(3.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioners were engaged in the U.P. State Warehousing Corporation-respondent no. 2 as daily wages. They were working as casual clerks and casual labours for several years. On 9.7.2007 a resolution was passed by the Board of Directors for regularization of the petitioners who have been working for the last several years and this recommendation has been forwarded to the State Government, as stated in paragraph 8 of the writ petition. It is also stated that the Managing Director has sent a request letter on 14.1.2005 to the State Government for creation of new posts in the Corporation.