Gyan Sudha Misra, J. - (1.) The petitioner has sought intervention of this Court by filing this writ petition on the plea that although he had been selected for appointment on the post of Conductor in the year 1984, the same has not yet been made effective. A little probe into the facts in this regard discloses that in the year 1984, applications were invited for the post of Conductors by the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (shortly referred to as RSRTC) through the Regional Manager, in response to which the petitioner also had applied along with others. A committee for the required selection was constituted in the year 1984 for Alwar Region and the petitioner had been selected. Accordingly, his name was placed at Sr. No. 445A of the select list. This select list was thereafter sent to the Regional Manager, RSRTC, Jaipur who issued an order on 14.6.1985 directing the selected candidates to undergo special training. The petitioner was dismayed not to find his name in the list of persons who had to undergo the said training. The petitioner therefore represented to the concerned authorities in the RSRTC, who after examining the entire record accepted the plea of the petitioner 'regarding his selection in pursuance of employment notice No. 159/84. Consequently, a letter was sent by the Personnel Officer of the RSRTC regarding petitioner's selection and a direction for inclusion of his name in the list of selected candidates by letter dated 23.1.1985. The instructions contained in the said letter, however, were not carried out. It was, therefore, followed up by another letter of the Personnel Officer dated 5.8.1985 to the Regional Manager, Alwar. The Regional Manager, Alwar, this time, complied with the instructions and accordingly issued a letter dated 8.8.1985 to respondent No. 2, Regional Director, RSRTC advising him that the petitioner's name had found place in the selection list of the Alwar Region in the year 1984 and his name was transferred to Jaipur region for granting him an appointment on the post of Conductor. The photostat copies of these letters dated 5.8.1985 and 8.8.1985 have been annexed with the writ petition as Ex. 3 and Ex. 4. Surprisingly, these informations were not paid any heed and the petitioner was compelled to represent once again in the year 1986. Fortunately, for the petitioner this was considered and a letter was sent to the Regional Director, RSRTC on 24.12.1986 that the petitioner is required to be given appointment on priority basis. The Regional Director, RSRTC this time again was defiant as he did not act upon even on the relevant. information which was supplied to him, but after a lapse of about five months an order was issued by respondent No. 2 on 8.5.1987 making his appointment for seven days in Delux Depot, Jaipur on the basis of the select list of the year 1984 of Alwar Region, in which the petitioner's position finds place at Sr. No. 445A. A photostat copy of this order/letter dated 24.12.1986 issued by the office of the Regional Director, RSRTC and the copy of the order dated 8.5.1987 has been annexed as a mark of proof in support of the averment of the petitioner. The petitioner's performance having been found satisfactory another order was issued on 2.7.1987. But surprisingly, the petitioner's appointment was made on daily wages on the post of Conductor in the Delux Depot, Jaipur, although his selection had been made against a sanctioned post on regular basis. The petitioner under compulsion of the circumstances even acquiesced with the appointment on daily wages, but only after a fortnight on 18.7.1987, the appointment of the petitioner was cancelled, although no order in writing was given to him. The petitioner again repeated his exercise of representing before the authority and also pointed out that persons who had been selected along with him by order dated 14.6.1985 were retained in service, whereas the petitioner has been kicked out of the job even on daily wages. The petitioner, thus, was compelled to move this Court finding no way out as his notice for demand of justice also went unreplied.
(2.) The legal pleas, therefore, which had been raised in support of the case of the petitioner, are quite plain and unambiguous which are two-fold. It has first of all been contended that although he had been duly selected for the post of conductor on a sanctioned post, his name was arbitrarily left out in the list of candidates who had to be sent for the required training. It has further been contended that even if the petitioner's appointment be treated as on daily wages his services could not have been terminated as the persons junior to him have been regularised in service whereas the petitioner was left out. This, undoubtedly, was done adopting pick and choose method, thus, denying the claim of appointment of the petitioner who had been duly selected.
(3.) This Court having been prima facie satisfied about the plea of the petitioner issued a show cause notice to the respondents as far back as in the year 1990 on 15.5.1990 which was duly served on the respondents and the counsel also put in his appearance in support of this. But in spite of several opportunities having been granted to the respondents, no reply was filed controverting the facts stated by the petitioner. However, in course of hearing, it transpired that on one of the occasions, the petitioner's name was left out of the list of candidates and was not sent for training as the marks-sheet of the petitioner was not legible. But thereafter the petitioner produced a legible copy of his mark-sheet. Thereafter he was given an appointment which also stood cancelled only after 15 days without assigning any reason. The defiance of the respondents in not giving appointment to the petitioner was sought to be explained by Shri Manish Bhandari by stating that in the year 1987, the services of a large number of conductors were dispensed with and order of retrenchment was passed. But in proof of this submission, no such order has been produced. It had been further submitted that a dispute of this nature ought to be sent before the Industrial Tribunal or the Labour Tribunal and this Court ought not to interfere as to whether the petitioner's services had been rightly dispensed with. Lastly, it has been submitted that mere selection on a post does not give the right of appointment to a selected candidate and, in support of this submission, reliance has been placed on a constitution bench judgment of the Supreme Court reported in 1991(3) SCC 47 in the matter of Shankar Sen Das v. Union of India .;