AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R.M. Doshit, C.J.—Re. Interlocutory Application No. 3403 of 2012.
The delay of 136 days occurred in filing the Letters Patent Appeal is condoned.
Re. Letters Patent Appeal No. 719 of 2012
Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 26th September 2011 passed by the learned single Judge in CWJC No. 4833 of 2009, three of the writ petitioners have preferred this Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent.
The appellants are the daily wage drivers employed under the respondent no. 3 for a long time. The appellants approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution in CWJC No. 12813 of 1999. The said writ petition came to be disposed of on 11th February 2005 by this Court (Coram: Mr. Justice Chandramauli Kumar Prasad, as he then was) with a direction that the vacancies be filled up within six months from the date of receipt of the order and that the cases of the appellants 3 (daily wage drivers) be considered for regular appointment. Since the said order, the vacant posts of drivers were advertised on 23rd November 2006. In the said advertisement, a specific reference was made in respect of the writ petitioners in CWJC No. 12813 of 1999 (the appellants) that they shall be entitled to apply for the post. Nevertheless, the appellants did not apply for regular appointment.
The appellants once again approached this Court in above CWJC No. 4833 of 2009 for an identical relief. The learned single Judge has dismissed the writ petition. The learned single Judge has considered the relevant recruitment rules and has held that no appointment in Class III service can be made unless a candidate is selected and recommended by the Staff Selection Commission. Although the appellants had been given an opportunity to participate in the selection process, they did not avail of the said opportunity.
Learned advocate Mr. Vijay Kumar Sinha has appeared for the appellants. He has submitted that in view of the relevant recruitment rules the appellants had become age-barred and were not eligible for appointment as driver. Relaxation in the age was granted to the appellants long after the date of the advertisement. The appellants, therefore, could not apply for regular appointment as driver.
We see no substance in the contentions raised before us. Irrespective of the recruitment rules and the eligibility prescribed thereunder, in view of the directions issued by this Court on 11th February 2005 the appellants had been given special treatment and were allowed to apply for regular appointment as driver. The appellants chose not to participate in the selection process. In our opinion, the appellants cannot have a legitimate grievance nor can they apply for regularization of their services.
No case for interference is made out. Appeal is dismissed in limine.