- (1.) RAKESH Tiwari-Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
(2.) THIS writ petition has been filed for the following relief : (a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 10.6.2005, passed by respondent No. 4 (Annexure-7) to the writ petition ; (b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on the post of driver in pursuance of order dated 12.5.2005, passed by this Court in pursuance of advertisement dated 31.3.2005 ; (c) Issue any other suitable writ, order or direction which this Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case ; and (d) Award cost of petition to the petitioner. By the impugned order dated 10.6.2005 the application of the petitioner for appointment as driver in the U.P.S.R.T.C. has been cancelled. The order of cancellation reads as under : ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMMITED]... It appears from the record that a large number of writ petitions had been filed earlier by the contract drivers challenging the advertisement for appointment of contract drivers against permanent post from time to time some of which have already been decided. The appointment of contract drivers was necessitated due to the fact that ban was imposed by the State Government on regular appointment.
(3.) EARLIER a bunch of writ petitions was decided by this Court. Writ Petition No. 48316 of 2004 was treated as the leading case which was disposed of vide judgment dated 22.2.2005 with certain directions. The issue in this case as well as in the earlier cases was with regard to the rights of the petitioners who were engaged as drivers by the Corporation on the basis of contract and had worked for a considerable period of time. Consequently, the ban was lifted and the posts of drivers were sanctioned by the State Government on 25.10.2004. Thereafter the Corporation issued advertisement on 28.10.2004 inviting applications from the eligible candidates for filling up the posts of drivers. The petitioners were aggrieved and claimed that they had right of regularization as well as relaxation in age etc. vide judgment dated 22.2.2005 in W.P. No. 48316 of 2004 the Court had directed the respondents to look into the grievance of the petitioners. Consequently a Joint Committee of the State Government and the Corporation was constituted to consider the question of relaxation in age and/or preference to be granted to the contract drivers within the ambit of U.P.S.R.T.C. Employees (Other than Officers) Service Regulations, 1981. The Committee submitted its report on 14.3.2005 which was forwarded to the Principal Secretary, Transport Department, Government of U. P. as well as to the Managing Director of the Corporation. Subsequently, the Corporation issued advertisement dated 31.3.2005, inviting applications from amongst the contract drivers also be considered for appointment on the post of drivers in the Corporation.;