(1.) As per the averments made in the writ petition, General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Dadri Depot, had sent a demand to the employment exchange to forward names to fill up ten vacancies of the post of Conductors in Dadri Depot. After considering the merits of persons forwarded by the Employment Exchange, names of ten persons, which included the names of the petitioners, were recommended for appointment and even a waiting list was also displayed on the notice board. In the latter part of the judgment, we will refer to the list of the selected candidates as List I.
(2.) It has further been averred that on December 7,1993, all the employees of the Transport Department, Haryana, went on strike and to meet an emergent situation, because there were no drivers and conductors, certain appointments were made to these posts at random so that the buses could be plied. Nearly 1500 employees were recruited in this manner. These included Drivers, Conductors and Workshop staff. On rejoining of the staff, which had gone on strike, the employees, who had been recruited during the period of strike had become surplus. The Transport Commissioner issued instructions on January 28, 1994, copy of which has been attached as Annexure P-2 as to how these approximately 1500 employees were to be dealt with. It would be appropriate to notice the relevant portion of the decision of the Government as contained in Annexure P-2-:
(3.) It would be seen from the above that the Committee had to screen those candidates who were appointed during the emergent situation created by the strike and a list had to be prepared under para (ii) above of the candidates who had been recommended and another list had also to be prepared under para (iii) above who were not found suitable but otherwise possessed the basic qualifications. The list so prepared under paras (ii) and (iii) would be referred hereinafter as lists II and III. The case of the petitioners is that though their names are in list I, yet candidates who are in lists II and III are being appointed as Conductors but the petitioners are being ignored for appointment as Conductors. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners had not been selected during the strike period though they were also given appointment during the period of strike and, therefore, candidates on lists II and III could not be preferred over the candidates in list I. If after apointment, services were to be terminated, then the services of those persons who were selected and appointed during the period of strike could be terminated first and not of the petitioners as they were regularly selected.