- (1.) The appellants, the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and authorities of the said Corporation, challenge the judgment dated 7-5-1997 of the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, in W.P. No. 2053 of 1996, sustaining a challenge made to the selection list for appointment of Drivers - displayed on 26-7-1996 and as a consequence thereof, set aside the said selection list while declaring that the claims of the ten petitioners are also to be considered for selection to the post of Drivers. In coming to the said conclusion, the Division Bench of the High Court held that the claims have to be considered in terms of Circular No. 15/95 dated 4-4-1995 which was said to be in force when the applications were called for and that Circular No. 17/96 dated 24-6-1996 has got to be ignored as being arbitrary, illegal and, at any rate, not retrospective in effect.
(2.) The third appellant issued an advertisement, inviting applications for the posts of Drivers and Conductors in the Newspapers on 20-9-1995, and the ten persons, who were petitioners before the High Court, applied for the post of Drivers along with several others. Since the Writ Petitioners were found to satisfy the requisite qualifications and experience, they were called for Driving Test held on 27-11-1995. Since they also were said to have passed the Driving Test, were again called for personal interview by a Letter dated 3-7-1996, which was held on 26-7-1996. Thereafter, the selection list was also said to have been displayed by the third respondent on 26-7-1996. The grievance of the Writ Petitioners before the High Court was that the Selection Committee, which conducted the personal interview, exercised the power of allotment of 25% marks, arbitrarily and in such a manner that the marks obtained in the Driving Test lost significance. It was also the grievance of the Writ Petitioners that the Circulars, which really should govern the selection, are those dated 23-1-1995 and 4-4-1995 and not the one dated 24-6-1996. As noticed earlier the grievance espoused found favour of acceptance with the High Court, resulting in this appeal.
(3.) Shri Altaf Ahmad, learned Additional Solicitor General, for the appellants and Shri Shrish Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the private party respondents, were heard. We have been taken through the different Circular Orders on which either party staked their respective claims and contentions. Certain case law was also brought to our notice. We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel on either side.;