RIYAZ AHMAD BHAT Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER â„¢s case is that on the eve of parliamentary elections of 1998 on assurance of respondents of absorption in Police Department, they joined as drivers for election duty and they were deputed to Dy. Superintendent of police Security and has MTO -respondent No. 5 for duties (annexure A,B & C). They worked as drivers during the election period with different VIPs from time to time. After the elections were over and despite the fact that they worked although, they were neither brought on regular establishment nor absorbed in the police department as drivers. The representations made to State Functionaries and Officers evoke no response. Despite being assured permanent employment before joining as drivers for election duty, respondents drag their feet and have come up with list of drivers vide orders No. 1875 of 99 dated 2.6.99 and order No. 1876 of 99 dated 2.6.99 (annexure L & M) impugned in this petition. Both orders are prayed to be quashed and the selectees/appointees as drivers ordered under the impugned orders are sought to be ousted, and petitioners prayed to be allowed to work.

(2.) RESPONDENTS in reply have not denied the engagement of petitioners as drivers during the relevant period due to felt necessity of utilization of services of drivers during parliamentary elections, but the contention of any assurance or promise or absorption of petitioners as drivers permanently or on regular basis is refuted. It is stated that the drivers in the Police Department are to be appointed in accordance with police rules, where care is taken of physical standards, outdoor tests, written and interview and of special test for driving vehicles. No assurance could be given by the State when the recruitment rules operate in the field, so far as respondents could not have created a mode of recruitment dehorse the rules. The petitioners were engaged temporarily for a short period for election purposes and nothing more. The drivers who have been taken on regular basis, have been appointed on proper selection, in terms of rules, on merits. It is contended that in absence of arraying the selected/appointed candidates as respondents, the writ petition is not maintainable, insofar as the prayed relief of quashment of selection/appointment order is going to adversely affect these selected/appointed candidates. Heard.

(3.) NO document/material is placed on record to show any assurance of petitionerâ„¢s absorption on regular basis as drivers in Police Department while engaging them for parliamentary election duty in 1998.