INDER SINGH JAMWAL Vs. H.R.T.C.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these writ petitions, the petitioners are aggrieved and have prayed for quashing of the requisition dated 29 -9 -1995 (Annexure P~3)f whereby the Divisional Manager, Himachal Road Transport Corporation, Mandi Division Mandi has asked the Employment Exchanges to sponsor the names of candidates to fill up 35 posts of conductors on contract basis and also to prepare waiting panel for filling up 20 anticipated posts on contract and on one to one basis. They have further prayed that these vacancies be filled no out of the panel already prepared in pursuance to selection made out of the candidates sponsored in response to earlier requisition dated 7 -5 -1994 (Annexure R -l),

(2.) The case set up by the petitioners is that by earlier requisition dated 7 -5 -1994 the respondent -corporation had sent for the names of the candidates for preparing a waiting panel for appointment to 75 posts of Conductors as and when needed in future against resultant vacancies, in pursuance whereof their names were duly sponsored by their respective employment exchanges and after holding written test and interview they were selected. The panel was announced on 6 8 1994, out of which 1! posts of conductors belonging to the category of ex -servicemen were filled up on 28 -2 -1995 Thereafter, 9 more posts of the general category were filled up on 27 -6 -1995. Further vacancies arising from time to time were not filled up out of said panel ; instead the requisition dated 29 -9 -1995 was issued which gave cause of action to the petitioners to file these petitions.

(3.) Shri Chirag B. Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, has raised two points to assail the action of respondent -Corporation The first point is that 35 vacancies were existing at the time requisition dated ?9 -9 -1995 was issued which were required to be filled up from the existing panel out of which 20 appointments were already made* The second point is that the change in policy to make appointments on contract basis instead of on regular basis is prospective which would apply to the vacancies arising in future The precise contention of Mr. Singh is that change of the policy midway was unreasonable, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. In support of his submissions he has relied upon N T. Devin Katti and others v. Karnataka Public Service Commission and others, (1990) 3 SCC 157 ; Union of India and others v. Ishwar Singh Khatri and others, 1992 Suppl (3) SCC 84 and State of Bihar and others Appellants v. The Secretariat Assistant Successful Examinees Union 1986 and others. Respondents, AIR 1994 SC 736,