AMAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This bunch of writ petitions is a sequel to the earlier set of writ petitions, decided by this Court on 22.2.2005, and of which writ petition No. 48316 of 2004 was treated as the leading writ petition. The issue involved earlier also was with regard to the rights of the petitioners who were engaged by the Corporation as drivers on the basis of contract. Such drivers had continued to work with the respondent-Corporation for a period ranging from 2 to 8 years. Their engagement had been made on contract basis because there was a ban imposed by the State Government on regular appointments of any fresh drivers. Undisputedly the Corporation needed working hands for driving their buses and it was at that time when, after adopting a selection process, the Corporation had selected drivers who were engaged on contract basis. After the posts of drivers were sanctioned by the State Government, the Corporation issued an advertisement dated 28.10.2004 for filling up the posts in which the petitioners claimed that they ought to have been given some relaxation and/or preference. By the Judgment and Order dated 22.2.2005 rendered in writ petition No. 48316 of 2004, this Court had issued directions for looking into the grievances of the petitioners for which a joint committee of the State Government and the Corporation was to be constituted, and which was to submit its report regarding the relaxation and/or preference which was to be granted to the contract drivers within the ambit of Regulations of 1981.

(2.) In terms of the said judgment dated 22.2.2005, the respondents had constituted a Committee which gave its report dated 14.3.2005. The same was forwarded by the Principal Secretary, Transport Department, Government of U.P. to the Managing Director of the Corporation on 24.3.2005 for necessary compliance. Thereafter the Corporation issued the advertisement dated 31.3.2005 inviting applications from amongst the contract drivers who were also to be considered for appointment as drivers. Aggrieved by the report of the Joint Committee and the terms of the advertisement, the petitioners have filed these writ petitions.

(3.) After a short counter affidavit had been filed by the contesting respondent - U.P. State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation), to which a short rejoinder affidavit had also been filed, the matter was heard on merits on 25.4.2005 and 26.4.2003. However, thereafter on 28.4.2005 Sri Sameer Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the Corporation, raised a preliminary objection that the petitioners have no locus standi to file this writ petition, as in the pleadings they have not stated as to how they are prejudiced by the action of the respondents which is under challenge in these writ petitions.