P YELLAIAH Vs. CONTONMENT BOARD SECUNDERABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This batch of writ petitions raise common questions of law and fact and is apt to bs disposed of by a common judgment. The petitioners prayed for an issue of a writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to appoint the petitioners on monthly basis as Safaiwalas (Sweepers) in the clear vacancies existing with the respondent and to pay the petitioners' salary on monthly basis (deducting the amount paid to them) from 1-11-1986 upto this day.

(2.) The respondent-Contonment Board addressed a letter No. 6/782/S5 dt. 24-9-1985 to the District Employment Officer, to sponsor candidates for the appointment of Safaiwalas. In pursuance of the requisition, the Employment Officer sponsored 361 candidates. The petitioners in these cases have also registered their names in the Local Employment Exchange, Hyderabad District. However, their names were not sponsored by the Employment Exchange along with others. When the petitioners approached the respondent- board for appointment to the post of Safaiwalas, the respondent-board declined to consider their request on the ground that their candidature was not sponsored by the Employment Exchange. The petitioners thereafter filed W P No. 11281/85 contending inter alia that they have made applications for the posts of safaiwalas to the respondent-board in accordance with the rules and they have a right to be con. sidered for selection to the posts of safaiwalas along with other candidates sponsered by the Employment Exchange. A direction was given in W P No. 11281/85 that the respondents shall interview the petitioners along with others and appoint them if they were otherwise found suitable for the job. All the petitioners were interviewed on 7-2-1986 and they were informed vide Lr. dt. 17-2-1986 that they were provisionally considered for appointment and should appear for a practical test. The petitioners appeared for the test and were medically examined at Contonment General Hospital, Secunderabad Contonment and were found fit appointment to the posts in question. Even though the petitioners were selected after the interview and a medical test, they were not given any orders to join duty. Eventually, the petitioners were orally appointed as safaiwalas on daily wage basis at Rs. 12-75 ps from 1-11-1986 instead of being appointed on a monthly basis. From 1-11-1986 onwards, the petitioners are working as daily wage workers in the 22 clear vacancies existing in the posts of safaiwalas. It may bs stated that the petitioners were interviewed along with 361 other candidates who were sponsored by the Employment Exchange and were found suitable for the job of the sweepers in the contonment board. In fact, only two candidates out of 361 candidates were selected from among those who were sponsored by the Employment Exchange. It seems that most of the candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchange either did not turn up for the interview or were found to be over-aged. As a result of this, only two candidates namely, 1) Smt. Sheela Devi w/o Sukh Ram EE Regn No. W/2899/76 S No. 48 of the list and 2) Smt. Shakuntala w/o Babu Rao EE Regn. No. W/787/76 S No. 27 of list, were selected and appointed. The petitioners, who were registered with the Employment Exchange but whose names were not sponsored by the Employment Exchange, number in all 123; out of whom, as stated earlier, 23 candidates were selected for appointment as safaiwalas.

(3.) The main grievance of the petitioners in these cases is that they have not been appointed on monthly basis in the clear vacancies existing even as on today, but are still engaged only on daily wages from 1-11-1986 and only two candidates who were sponsored by the Employment Exchange named above have been appointed on monthly basis as such.