- (1.) This writ petition has been filed for a direction upon respondents not to interfere in the working of petitioners as Driver in the employment of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, and to allow them to continue as such. A further prayer has been made to command the respondents to release salary as per the appointment order issued to the petitioners.
(2.) Facts, giving rise to filing of the writ petition, are that respondent Corporation for the purposes of filling of backlog vacancies issued an advertisement, notifying 1104 posts to be filled from the candidates belonging to reserved category. The posts were further appropriated to be filled by recruitment at different regional offices. Petitioners, pursuant to such advertisement, appear to have applied, and they were selected and were thereafter issued an order of appointment on 15.9.1997. It is not in dispute that petitioners were allowed to join, and they had worked for a few months in the respondent Corporation. It appears that appointment issued to petitioners was subsequently terminated by the respondent Corporation, on the ground that the number of vacant posts available in the Corporation was only 460, whereas appointments have been made far in excess of the posts available, and consequently, appointments, which were found in excess of the vacancy available, were terminated.
(3.) According to the respondents, this exercise was undertaken pursuant to a direction issued by the State Government on 6th January, 1998, in which it was observed that any appointment made in excess of vacant posts available was impermissible, and had to be discontinued. The termination orders passed against similarly placed persons came to be challenged before this Court in leading Writ Petition No.4498 of 1998 (Shatrujeet Lal and others Vs. U.P.S.R.T.C. and others). The writ petition was disposed of, vide order dated 20.3.1998, on the following terms:- "After considering respective contentions I find that the petitioners have claimed that as against existing vacancies for reserved categories petitioners had been appointed and they could not be thrown out in the manner it has been done on a change of policy. The respondents have contended that the appointment of the petitioners was in violation of statutory provision and so they have no right to continue to hold the post. It has also been contended on behalf of the respondents that there was no change of policy and appointments were made on a wrongful calculation of vacancies and in fact such posts were not vacant and, therefore, those candidates employed had been terminated to the extent posts were not existing as were detected subsequently. With regard to the first contention of the respondents that in the facts involved herein selection itself was in violation of the regulations, I find that admittedly all appointments in course of the said selection process have not been terminated. Therefore, apparently termination of the petitioners was not on the ground of illegality in selection process. Had it been so, all appointments through the same selection process would have been cancelled. It is categorical case of the respondents that only those appointments were terminated which were made against no posts although on earlier calculation posts were thought to be existing vacant. Therefore, this contention of the respondents as regards illegality of the selection need not be gone into. The other contention of the respondents is that selection and appointments were made on calculation of existing vacancies and subsequently it has been detected that calculation was made wrongly and vacancies were existing much less in number in some regions and there was no vacancy in some other regions. It appears that on the aforesaid ground of appointment against no vacancy the decision was taken for cancellation of appointments. Though the petitioners strongly disputed the said contention, but they have not been able to show producing any acceptable material that posts really existed vacant in reserved quota. The other contention of the petitioners that termination has been effected on change of policy is not factually acceptable. In the facts and circumstances, I have no reason to disbelieve the contention of the respondents that upon detection of correct position as regards availability of vacancies for reserved candidates termination had been effected in respect of those candidates who were appointed against vacancies which were subsequently found to be non-existent. It apparently resulted in appointment against no post. The respondents are entitled to take such step for cancelling appointment or terminating service on detection of mistake as regards availability of posts. Law in this connection has been made clear in the case of Ashwani Kumar and others wherein similar consideration was involved and employees therein appointed by appointing authority were not granted any relief by the Apex Court on the ground that appointments were made in excess of available vacancies and such recruitments were not supported by any budgetary grants although they were appointed long back. In so holding the apex court considered the fact that "there would have to be recruitment to the sanctioned vacancies necessarily backed up by the financial budget support." It has been further held therein that "there cannot be an employee without a vacancy or post available on which he can work and can be paid as per the budgetary sanction.";