Jagdamba Prasad Sharma vs State of H.P.

Justice V.K.Sharma, J.—Both these petitions are taken up together for disposal, as these raise identical questions of fact and law. The petitions have been filed on the following identical substantive prayer:

That the respondents may kindly be directed to appoint the present petitioner against the available vacancies in the light of the judgment passed in the CWP No. 973/2010 titled Prem Singh Vs. State of HP & Ors and in CWP No. 477/2010 dated 9.3.2012 titled Madan Lal Vs. State of HP.

In reply to CWP No. 3489 of 2012, respondents No. 2 and 3 have taken the following stand, vide paras 3 and 4:

That in reply to the contents of Para 3 of the Civil Writ Petition, it is submitted that the respondents have advertised 550 posts for engagement of Drivers during the year 2009 from different categories. As many as 464 candidates have been engaged on the basis of merit and in the meantime, the Hon''ble High Court ordered in C.W.P. No. 601/2010, titled as Chet Ram vs. H.R.T.C. & ors. that the panel prepared during the year 2007 may be exhausted first. Accordingly, H.R.T.C. has exhausted the panel prepared during the year 2007. Resultantly, the candidates selected in the panel beyond 464 could not be engaged. It is further submitted that as per the rules, the life of panel is only one year. Now almost 3 years period is about to complete since 2009, hence, the petitioner cannot be granted the appointment at this belated stage.

That in reply to the contents of Para 4 of the Civil Writ Petition, it is submitted that this Hon''ble Court has only given the direction in respect of the panel which was prepared in the year 2007 be exhausted first. So far as the selection pertaining to the year 2009 is concerned, no such direction was given by this Hon''ble Court. It is further submitted that some of the persons by concealing the material facts have obtained the same and similar relief as has been granted to the persons who were selected during the year 2007.

It is the case of the petitioners that pursuant to an advertisement notice issued by respondent No. 2, they had successfully participated in the selection process for recruitment of drivers in the respondent-Corporation, during the year 2009. It is stated that in all 550 posts were advertised at that time.

The case set up on behalf of respondents No. 2 and 3 is that out of the aforesaid 550 vacancies, as many as 464 drivers were appointed. However, in the meantime, a direction was issued by this Court in CWP No. 601 of 2010, titled Chet Ram v. H.R.T.C. & Others, directing the respondent Corporation to first exhaust the select list of drivers, relating to the process undertaken during the year 2007. It being so, further recruitment, over and above 464 drivers out of the select list of the year 2009, could not be made.

The claim of the petitioners is refuted on behalf of the respondent-Corporation mainly on the ground that they cannot be appointed on the basis of the select list of the year 2009 as the same, which was only for one year, has already outlived its utility. However, the fact remains that no fault can be found with the petitioners on this count as it was on the direction of this Court that precedence was given to the candidates, selected during the process undertaken in the year 2007, over and above the petitioners and other similarly situate persons, which was beyond their control.

In view of the above, the petitions are allowed, with a direction to respondent No. 2 that as and when the respondent-Corporation initiates the process for recruitment of drivers, the cases of the petitioners for appointment as such, shall be considered on priority basis, on the basis of the select list of the year 2009, in accordance with the Rules. The writ petitions are disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any.