TULSI YADAV Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri P.N. Saxena. Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Avanish Tripathi, learned Counsel for the petitioners-appellants, learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Sri K.M. Asthana, learned Counsel for respondent nos. 3 to 5 and perused the record.

(2.) Learned Single Judge under the impugned order has recorded that the petitioner-appellants were offered appointment on the post of drivers in the year 1999 with reference to advertisement which mentions that the appointment to be offered was temporary in nature. The said aspect of the matter is not in dispute. Learned Single Judge has found that the initial appointment of the petitioner-appellants was for a period of 89 days and was to meet the contingency due to permanent drivers having gone on strike. Their appointment was extended from time to time. They filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 5067 of 2008 challenging the advertisement, which was published by the Nagar Nigam for making permanent appointment against the existing vacancies of drivers. The said writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the grievance of the petitioners vide order dated 18th Aug., 2010. The claim of the petitioners came to be considered under the order dated 1st April, 2011 of the Principal Secretary, Nagar Vikas. In the order dated 28th April, 2011 of the Nagar Ayukta, Nagar Nigam, Kanpur Nagar, the petitioner-appellants have not been found entitled for regular appointment or for regularization on the posts in question.

(3.) The order of the learned Single Judge reflects that the orders dated 1st April, 2011 and 28th April, 2011 were not subject to challenge by the petitioners, instead they filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.43464 of 2012 making a prayer to consider the recommendation dated 8th May, 2009 and to regularize their services. The third prayer made in the petition was to make payment of the salary to the petitioners on month to month basis as and when it falls due. Before the learned Single Judge, learned counsel for the petitioners made a statement that he would not like to press prayer nos. 1 and 2 i.e. the prayer for regularization and for consideration of the recommendation dated 8th May, 2009 and to that extent the writ petition was dismissed as not pressed.