RAJENDRA DATTATRAY GAIKWAD Vs. TRANSPORT MANAGER,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AS all these petitions deal with common question of law and fact and seek identical relief against the transport department of Pune Municipal Corporation, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) THE respondent is the manager of transport department of Pune Municipal Corporation. By an advertisement dated 4.4.1990 which was published in daily news paper 'Kesari' in its issue dated 7.4.1990 the respondent invited applications for preparing waiting list for the posts of temporary conductors on the city buses on daily wages. All the petitioners preferred their applications and were called for interview. The result was declared by the Selection Committee sometime in the month of October/November 1990 and all the petitioners were selected for being included in the waiting list. The waiting list was of about 747 candidates out of which 520 were for general category and 227 were for reserve category. All petitioners belong to the general category and were in the list of 520 candidates put on the waiting list. Upto July/August 1992 about 351 candidates from the general category, from our of the waiting list, were absorbed in service as temporary conductors and all the 227 candidates out of reserve category were also absorbed in service. Thus about 169 candidates from out of waiting list of general category remained to be absorbed.

(3.) THEREAFTER it appears that about 25 persons out of remaining 169 candidates on the waiting list preferred writ petitions and in respect of those 25 candidates in several petitions this court was pleased to pass order permitted the transport department to proceed with the advertisement dated 29.12.1992 and complete all the formalities including preparation of waiting list. The respondent transport department was directed to fill 50 percent of the back log which as per the then estimate was about 200 approximately. The transport department was further directed to consider those petitioners on priority basis and while doing so petitioners therein should not be rejected on the ground that they are age barred. The transport department was also directed to ascertain the actual figure of backlog within a period of three months from the date of the order. The order specifically granted liberty to the respondent transport department to proceed further as per the waiting list prepared on the basis of the advertisement of 29.12.1992 and Rule was made absolute in the aforesaid terms.