Mukesh A. Bharda vs Dy. Commissioner and Superintendent of Police and 3

Honourable Mr. Justice Paresh Upadhyay

Heard Ms. Pathan, learned advocate for the petitioner, Ms. Mehta, learned Assistant Government Pleader and Mr. Gandhi, learned advocate for respondent no. 4. The petitioner had prayed for regularization on the post of driver and had also prayed for termination order dated 06.09.2001. By subsequent amendment, even the appointment of respondent no. 4 on the post of driver, was challenged in this petition.

It is the grievance of the petitioner that the petitioner, while he was working as a temporary driver in the office of Prohibition and Excise Department at Himmatnagar, had made an application for regularization. However, the authorities invited names from Employment Exchange. The name of the petitioner was sent by the Employment Exchange. The name of respondent no. 4 was also sent by the Employment Exchange. After conducting the procedure, authorities found respondent no. 4 more suitable for the post and he was appointed, and as the consequence thereof, service of the petitioner came to be discontinued. Under these circumstances, the petitioner approached this Court by preferring this petition for regularization of his service on the said post.

Having heard learned counsel for respective parties and going through the record including the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of respondent authorities, what transpires is that after having sponsored name from Employment Exchange, selection process was made, wherein, the petitioner was placed below respondent no. 4 in the select list, which has resulted in appointment of respondent no. 4 and as the consequence thereof, discontinuance of service of the petitioner. No exception can be made to this action of the respondent authorities. Learned counsel for the petitioner however contended that even appointment of respondent no. 4 was also on temporary basis and, therefore, the petitioner, who was even otherwise working on daily rate basis, ought not to have been disturbed by the authorities. This argument is not available to the petitioner on the face of his participating in the selection process and being placed below respondent no. 4 in the merit list.

Since I find that discontinuance of petitioner from the post of daily rated driver which is challenged in this petition cannot be interfered with in the circumstances stated above, the prayer for regularization would also not survive. 6. For the reasons recorded above, I find that no relief can be granted to the petitioner and therefore, the petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. No costs.