- (1.) D. K. Seth, J. The petitioners were given training as vaccinators. Admittedly, there are 14 vacant posts of vaccinators in Nagar Nigam Kanpur. The petitioners claim that the said 14 posts were adver tised and the petitioners participated in the selection. But no selection was made nor result of the said selection declared and the petitioners were not given ap pointment. Therefore, the petitioners had filed a writ petition which was disposed of on 8-11-1993 by directing the respondents to consider the petitioners representation. Accordingly, their representation was considered by the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari who instead of passing an order applying his own mind, had only endorsed the note or report prepared by the subordinate. Against such rejection of their repre sentation by the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari, the petitioners further preferred a repre sentation before the Commissioner, which was rejected by an order dated 23-4-1996 contained in Annexure-9 to the writ peti tion. The order of Mukhya Nagar Adhikari is Annexure-8 dated 1-5-1995 passed on the report dated 29-11-1994 (Annexure-7 ).
(2.) MR. V Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari had never applied its mind and had only endorsed' the report prepared by his subordinate and therefore, on account of non-application of mind, the said order cannot be sustained. The Commissioner having placed relance on the report of Mukhya Nagar Adhikari, the order passed by the Commissioner is also without any basis and therefore, the same cannot be supported. He further contends that since there are 14 posts vacant and financial aid is being received by the Nagar Nigam from the Government even against said 14 vacant posts, therefore, it is incum bent upon the Nagar Nigam to give ap pointment to the petitioner against said 14 posts. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Admittedly, the posts as' vaccinator were meant for vaccinating the people within the municipal limit:' against small pox. Admittedly, small pox is completely eradicated from the territory of the Union of India. Thus, there is no work left for the vaccinator. It is also apparent from the records produced as annexures to the writ petition, that small pox having been eradicated completely and no work having been left for the vaccinators, the existing vaccinators out of 44 posts except 14 vacancies, are being utilized for maintain ing registers of birth and death. This tact has not been disputed by Mr. V. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. He also stated at the bar that 29 vaccinators now in service are discharging duties of maintain ing birth and death register within the municipality and, therefore, he claims that the petitioners may also be recruited and be given similar work. When there is no necessity to employ vaccinators even if there are vacancies, in such circumstances, this Court is not empowered to compel the Nagar Nigam to recruit vaccinators or fill up the remaining vacant posts. This Court has no jurisdiction to compel the employer to fill up the posts even if the same remain vacant. The petitioner haying been given training, they cannot claim that they must be given appointment as some vacancies are existing. By reason of such training, the petitioners did not acquire indefeasible right to claim ap pointment. It is only a right to be con sidered if recruitment is made. In the present case, since the Nagar Nigam is not making any recruitment though it had ad vertised the posts in order to make ap pointment, but having decided not to-make the recruitment, this Court cannot compel it to undertake the recruitment and employ the petitioners even though the Nagar Nigam does not require any such services. There is nothing to indicate that as to how a person who has obtained training as vaccinator could compel the Nagar Nigam to give appointment for the purpose of discharging duties of register ing birth and death.
(3.) THE question that a report was prepared by the subordinate, does not ap pear to be a sound proposition as has been sought to be made by Mr. Y Singh. All reports are prepared at the bottom by clerks and placed before the appropriate authority along with records. If the authority agrees with such report in that event, it endorses the same whereas in case of disagreement with the report, the authority prepares its own report if he thinks fit. THEre is no compulsion on the authority that after examining the record even if it agrees with the report prepared by its subordinate, that he should prepare his own report. From Annexure-8 it ap pears on the basis of such report the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari had taken his own decision which is apparent from the order dated 1-5-95 where he had given reasons. THErefore, it was not a total non-applica tion of mind which could erode the value of the said order. THE again, the order contained in Annexure-9 passed by the Commissioner is a detailed order giving detailed reasons. THE noting contains the fact of the representation made and the situation as stands. I have gone through the order passed by the learned Commis sioner and the reasons given therein. It does not appear that there is any infirmity in the said order. After applying his mind, he has passed a reasoned order. I do not find any reason to disagree with the reasons given therein. THEre being no necessity to the Nagar Nigam to employ vaccinators in the absence of any work, the Nagar Nigam cannot be compelled to employ vaccinators simply because they were trained as vaccinators even on ac count of existence of vacancies. As observed earlier, I do not find any reason to disagree with the view taken by the Commissioner. The writ petition, therefore, fails and is accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed. .;