BRAJKISHORESHARMA Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE AND COLLECTOR-CUM-PRESIDENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ application has been filed by the petitioners under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing the notice for auction of the Bus stand at Vaishali situated at Ramashish Chowk, Hajipur.

(2.) The petitioners, who are nineteen in number, after serving as members of the Defence Forces, retired from Military Service after completion of their period of service during the years 1984-86. All the petitioners are below the age of fifty years. The Government has framed an scheme for rehabilitation of the ex-military personnel, wherein provision has been made for employment of ex-military personnels by fixing the quotas and they are to continue in service till the age of retirement fixed by various Governments and Government Undertakings.

(3.) Ramashish Chowk is situated on the Junction of Chapra-Muzaffarpur Road and the road connected from North Bihar and South Bihar by Mahatma Gandhi Setu. Motor Vehicles of all descriptions passes through the said Chowk where passengers also change their vehicles for going to different directions Respondent No. 1, the District Magistrate, Vaishali, who is also President of Bus Stand Committee. Vaishali, by virtue of the powers vested in him under Section 76 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 1939, read with Rule 88 of the Bihar Motor Vehicles Rule, 1940 created three different halting stands for different category of the vehicles for the convenience of the travelling passenges and by Notification dated 26/3/1987 respondent No. 1 fixed the fee for halting places of different categories of vehicles relating to different routes differently A copy of the said Notification is Annexure 2 to this writ application. It is said that the said halting places were decided to be managed departmentally as Government Bus stand and for administrative purposes a separate section as "Bus stand section" was created by respondent No. 1 under Vaishali Collectorate Large area of land at different places were ear-marked for halting of vehicles for different routes for which large number of persons were required for the management of different baiting places For the management of halting places respondent No. 1 decided in his statutory functions that the same should be managed by ex-military men who should be appointed to the posts of Assistant Manager. Toll Collector and Gate-Man. Pursuant to the said decision a notice for appointment was published by respondent No. 1 in the year 1987. A copy of the said notice is Annexure 3 to this petition. As the petitioners were waiting for employment, the concerned District Soldier Welfare Army Board under the rehabilitation scheme for the exservice men recommended the names of several persons including some of the petitioners for appointment and twenty persons were appointed from amongst the ex-service men by Memo No. 52 dated 4th May, 1987. A copy of the aforesaid memo, is annexed as Annexure 4 to the wtit petition. As the remuneration for the work was poor several persons, who were appointed on 4th May, 1987 left the job and, accordingly, further appointments were made from time to time from amongst the members of the ex-military persons as and when vacancy arose. Various appointment letters have been annexed as Annexures 4/1 to 4/7 to the writ petition. Ever since their appointment the petitioners have been regularly and honestly discharging their duties in giving protection to the passenger from collecting tools and looking to the convenience and safety of the travelling public. From 1987 to 1991 there has been an average toll collection of rupees ten lacs per annum and there has never been any complaint against any of the petitioners of any misconduct. While the petitioners were working they were surprised and shocked to see the advertisement published on 27/8/1992 in the daily Hindustan, as contained in Annexure 1, to the effect that the Government Bus Stand, Hajipur, is going to be auctioned to the private person. It has been submitted that the condition of the auction does not protect the service conditions of the petitioners and as such they have apprehension that they would be thrown out from the employment, if the settlement of the Bus stand is made to the private person. The petitioners represented before the respondent No. 1 specifically pointing out that after serving for five years they are going to be thrown out of the employment and as such they cannot be rehabilitated anywhere else A delegation of the petitioners also met with respondent No. 1 who merely assured that he would request the private settlee to allow the petitioners to continue in employment. It is stated that such continuance of the petitioners would be at the mercy of the private employer which will not be a condition of settlement.