Allahabad High Court
Krishna Murari Mishra vs Managing Director U.P.State Road ... on 2 January, 2023
Bench: Irshad Ali
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 5
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3806 of 2006
Petitioner :- Krishna Murari Mishra
Respondent :- Managing Director U.P.State Road Trans.Corp.Lko And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Chandra Prakash Shukla,Krishna Kumar Dubey,Ramesh Pandey,Shyam Narayan Shukla
Counsel for Respondent :- S.Tewari,Anuj Kudesia,C S Pandey
Hon'ble Irshad Ali,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Anuj Kudesia, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the order dated 20.10.2005 issued by respondent no.3 as contained in Annexure no.1 to the writ petition with further prayer to issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite parties to permit the petitioner for appearing in second test which is cheduled for selection of Driver on regular basis in the light of the judgment and order dated 22.2.2005 passed in Writ Petition No.48316 (SS) of 2004.
3. Facts of the case are that the petitioner has been engaged as driver on contract basis in the year 1997. Pursuant to an advertisement issued for selection of 1400 regular drivers in UPSRTC in daily newspaper 'Amar Ujala' on 28.10.2004. The petitioner applied for regular selection. Candidature of the petitioner was not accepted by the authorities of the Corporation on the ground that the petitioner has crossed the upper age limit of 35 years.
On 15.12.204, the petitioner approached this Court and this Court directed the opposite parties to permit the petitioner for appearing in the test provisionally vide order dated 15.12.2004. The candidature of the petitioner was again not accepted despite of the order dated 15.12.2004 again on the ground the petitioner is short in height by 1 x2".
The petitioner again approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.19(SS) of 2005 and this Court directed the opposite parties to consider the case of the petitioner alongwith other eligible persons. The Selecting Authority was also directed to take into account the fact that the petitioner has been driving the buses of the Corporation since 1997.
The opposite parties being aggrieved by the order dated 5.1.2005 passed in Writ Petition No.19(SS) of 2005 filed special appeal before this Hon'ble Court which was registered as Special Appeal No.69(SB) of 2005 and the Division Bench of this Court observed that the matter is pending before Hon'ble Single Judge and no counter affidavit has been filed by the opposite party no.2, therefore it would be proper that the same is decided by the Hon'ble Single Judge. It was also directed that selection would be made after considering the case of the petitioner in accordance with law taking into the eligibility criteria.
A bunch of writ petitions were filed involving the same controversy of contract drivers regarding exceeding in upper age limit and height and the controversy was finally settled by this Hon'ble Court in W.P. No.48316 (SS) of 2004 observing therein that the contract Drivers were presently working, are entitled to get some relaxation in age and height.
In compliance of the judgment and order dated 22.2.2005, the petitioner was permitted to appear in the test and 5 years' relaxation in upper age limit was provided to all the contract drivers presently working. The opposite party no.3 vide its letter dated 20.10.2005 declared the petitioner unfit for appearing in second test of driver without assigning any reason whatsoever.
4. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that without assigning any reason, claim of the petitioner for regular selection has been cancelled and in this regard, statement of fact has been made in paragraph 15 of the writ petition, in reply to which statement of fact has been made in paragraph 15 of the counter affidavit, wherein categoric statement of fact has been made that he has secured 72 marks and the candidates who secured 83.3 marks from the General category were selected in the merit list and due to non-fulfilment of the criteria, the petitioner could not be cancelled.
5. Last submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that under Uttar Pradesh Regularisation of Persons Working On Daily Wages or On Work Charge or On Contract In Government Departments On Group "C" And Group "D" Posts (Outside The Purview Of The Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission) Rules, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules, 2016'), the petitioner is entitled for consideration of his claim for regularization as he is serving in the department since 1997 on contract basis.
6. In this regard, Shri Anuj Kudesia, learned counsel for the respondents submits that Rules, 2016 does not applicable to the Corporation and it is in respect of government servants who are working in the government departments either on dailywage basis or on contract basis.
7. I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record as well as Rules, 2016.
8. Perusal of the Rules, 2016 indicates only two things namely (a) a person should have been directly engaged or employed or deployed or working on daily wages or on work charge or on contract in a Government Department on or before December 31, 2001 and is still engaged or employed or deployed or working as such on the date of the commencement of these rules i.e. 12.09.2016, and (b) should have possessed requisite qualification prescribed for regular appointment. Admittedly, the petitioner is the employee of the Corporation, therefore, Rules, 2016 is not applicable to the case of the petitioner.
9. In view of the above, no case has been made out to call for any interference from this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
10. Accordingly, this writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
Order Date :- 2.1.2023
GK Sinha
