SHATRUJEET LALS Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition was filed challenging the termination order a copy whereof has been annexed as Annexure-3 to the supplementary affidavit.

(2.) The contention of the petitioners is that the respondent No. 1 directed making selection and appointment of candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled tribes on the posts of drivers in Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as Corporation] and pursuant thereto, advertisement was published in two newspapers inviting applications from suitable candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Petitioners made applications and all formalities were completed and were selected by a selection committee for appointment. Upon receiving appointment letters, petitioners joined their respective posts in the month of September, 1997 and continued to discharge duties. Show-cause notices were issued to the petitioners to which petitioners submitted replies. Originally the writ petition was filed apprehending termination order. Thereafter a supplementary affidavit was filed stating that termination orders had been issued and the same were also challenged.

(3.) Respondents filed counter-affidavit stating that although very small number of vacancies were available but large number of appointments were made in the posts of drivers. Contention has also been made against such appointments stating that they are in violation of the provisions of Regulation 19 of the U. P. State Road Transport Corporation Employees (other than Officers) Service Regulations. 1981 inasmuch as such recruitments could not be made without notifying the Employment Exchange. It has been contended that there were no posts against which petitioners were appointed and there was no budget to pay salary to them. It has been contended that in the above factual background the termination orders were rightly passed.