Rakesh Sharma, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Anurag Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of opposite parties.
(2.) UNDER challenge is an order issued on 28.5.1999, by the Regional Transport Officer, Lucknow, dismissing the representation of the petitioner through which he had sought re-employment in the service as Class IV post. Sri Anurag Verma learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was initially appointed as a daily wage worker on 17.9.1986 by the Assistant Regional Transport Officer, Sitapur. The petitioner had worked to the entire satisfaction of the superiors. He was disengaged from service on 12.1.1987. The petitioner was again appointed as daily wage paid worker on 6.6.1989 by the Regional Transport Officer, Lucknow. A formal appointment order was issued in favour of the petitioner on 6.6.1989, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-5 to the writ petition. The petitioner was transferred to work at the office of Assistant Regional Transport Officer, Sitapur where he joined on 9.6.1989. The petitioner was disengaged again on 9th September, 1989 without any rhyme or reason. Learned counsel for the petitioner has alleged that one Sri Balwant Singh, who was resident of native village of the then Regional Transport Officer, Lucknow was engaged in place of the petitioner on 15.11.1989. In fact, the petitioner was disengaged from service to make room for Sri Balwant Singh. Sri Balwant Singh was also appointed as Class IV employee just as the petitioner and was posted to work at the office of Additional Regional Transport Officer, Sitapur. He is still in service and has been regularized in service. The petitioner, who was an appointee of September, 1986 as such should not have been thrown out of employment to accommodate Sri Balwant Singh, who was much junior to him.
(3.) SIMILARLY one Sri Hari Nath Singh, who was also relative of the Regional Transport Officer, Lucknow was appointed in the year 1989 on Class IV post by the Regional Transport Officer, Lucknow. Being aggrieved, the petitioner had submitted several representations to the concerned authorities for redressal of his grievance but to no avail. The petitioner has brought to the notice of the superior authority that he is a B. Com. graduate, fully qualified, fit and suitable for a class IV post or a class III post in the department. During the pendency of representations submitted by the petitioner, the Regional Transport Officer, Lucknow and the Additional Regional Transport Officer, Sitapur continued to make appointments of other persons like Nandlal, Salman, Jai Prakash, Raj Narain Yadav and Daya Shanker in the aforementioned office. The services of Jai Prakash, Raj Narain and Daya Shanker were terminated. Sri Jai Prakash and Raj Narain had filed Writ Petition No. 8384 (S/S) of 1993 and this Court passed an interim order in their favour on 21.5.1993. Similarly one Sri Daya Shanker had also filed Writ Petition No. 4590 (S/S) of 1993 and obtain an interim order on 10.6.1993. These persons were reinstated in service while the petitioner's case was not considered for reinstatement in the service. All the aforementioned persons, who were engaged immediately after termination of service of the petitioner, were favorites of the authorities or related to the concerned Regional Transport Officer and the Additional Regional Transport Officer. It is clear from the aforesaid discussion several vacancies were available in the department.;