- (1.) By means of this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 17-3-2001 whereby the services of respondent No. 6 Mahesh Kumar have been regularised on the post of Driver and a further prayer has been made that the respondents be directed not to fill up the post of Driver in any other manner or by any other candidate except the petitioner.
(2.) I have heard Sri Pankaj Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri Rajni Kant Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 5 as well as Sri Krishna Ji Khare, learned counsel for private respondent No. 6 at some length and on various dates, and have also perused the voluminous record of the case including the enquiry report submitted by the 'Additional District Judge, Bareily, who under orders of this Court, conducted an enquiry into the correctness of certain documents/certificates which were placed on record of this case by the parties.
(3.) Admittedly the petitioner was appointed as a Driver on daily wage basis on 30-10-1990 and the respondent No. 6 was appointed as such on 2-1-1989 (wrongly shown at certain places as 1980 instead of 1989). By the impugned order dated 17-3-2001, respondent No. 6 Mahesh Kumar has been regularised in service and although the case of the petitioner was also considered along with him, his services have not been regularized. While challenging the appointment of respondent No. 6 the learned counsel for the petitioner has raised the following issues : (i) The Selection Committee constituted for regularisation of daily wage employees had itself violated the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Regularisation of Daily Wage Appointments on Group 'C' posts (outside the purview of the U.P. Public Service Commission) Rules. 1998 (for short "Regularisation Rules of 1998") and even the appointing Authority violated the mandatory provisions of the Rules and Regulations : (ii) The appointing Authority exercised its discretion in favour of ineligible candidates and regularised their services after ignoring the case of eligible candidates such as the petitioner and such discretion had been exercised by the appointing Authority for extraneous considerations.;