Sudhir Agarwal, J. - (1.) Heard Sri B. N. Singh, learned counsel for petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for State-respondent and Sri Avinash Chaturvedi, Advocate holding brief of Sri S. K. Mishra, learned counsel for respondent.
(2.) This writ petition was filed initially seeking a mandamus commanding respondents to consider petitioners for promotion against vacancies in 15 per cent promotion quota of Class IV employees on the posts of Conductors with all consequential benefits. Subsequently by way of amendment, allowed by Court's order dated 04.07.2016, following two prayers were added : "1-A. Issue an appropriate writ, order, direction to the effect that the Circular dated 24.8.2000 issued by respondent No.1 filed as Annexure No.S.C.A.-II to the S.C.A.-II (Annexure no.14) is not applicable and/or quashed to the extent it is against the petitioners. 1-B. Issue a further appropriate writ, order, direction to the respondents to regularized the services of the petitioners on the post of Conductor from the date the petitioners are discharging the duties and pay salary allowances and other benefits admissible to the post of Conductors along with 18 % interest." (emphasis added)
(3.) The facts as evident from record are that petitioners, six in number, were appointed as Class IV employees. Petitioners 1 to 4 were appointed as Cleaner; petitioner 5 was appointed as Assistant and petitioner 6 as Assistant Electric Fitter. Appointments were made in 1989, except petitioner 6, who was appointed in 1987. It is claimed that petitioners 1, 2, 5 and 6 were required to discharge duties of Conductor since 1994 and petitioners 3 and 4 were required to perform duties of Conductor in 1997 and onwards.;