Himachal Pradesh High Court
Chander Mohan vs Union Of India And Others on 3 March, 2016
Bench: Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Sureshwar Thakur
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
SHIMLA
CWP No 4287 of 2014.
Date of decision: 3rd March, 2016.
Chander Mohan .....Petitioner.
.
Versus
Union of India and others ...Respondents
Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice.
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sureshwar Thakur, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting ?1
of
For the petitioner: Mr. B.C. Negi, Sr. Advocate, with Mr.
Pranay Pratap Singh, Advocate.
For the respondents:
rt
Mr. Ashok Sharma, ASGI, with
Mr. Ajay Chauhan, Advocate,
for respondents No. 1 to 3.
_____________________________________________________
Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice (Oral)
The petitioner, by the medium of this writ petition, has called in question the order dated 16th May, 2014, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench (Circuit at Shimla) (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal", for short, in OA No.619-HP-2012, whereby the O.A. filed by the petitioner came to be dismissed, hereinafter referred to as "the impugned judgment", for short, on the grounds taken in the memo of the writ petition.
1Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:51:52 :::HCHP -2-2. It appears that the petitioner was appointed as driver on substitute basis, had filed Original Application before the Tribunal, seeking following relief.
.
"That the action of the respondents in filling up the post of Driver/Cleaner by floating tender be quashed and it be declared that the applicants havig been appointed as Driver./cleaner in accordance with recruitment rules, they are deemed to have been appointed on regular basis from the date they initially joined and the actionof of the respondents by giving notional break be also declared as wholly illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory."
3. The application was resisted and contested by rt the respondents.
4. The Tribunal, after examining the pleadings, held that the petitioner had not participated in the regular selection process but was engaged as substituted driver. It is apt to reproduce paras 9 and 10 of the impugned judgment herein.
"9. Learned counsel for the respondents asserted that it was a policy decision of the respondent No.1 to fill the post of drivers and cleaners in the MMS units through outsourcing. The applicant had only been engaged as paid substitute driver as a stop-gap arrangement and this could not be treated as proper advertisement for recruitment to the post of driver. He further stated that the applicant could not be appointed to the post without going through the recruitment process which includes advertisement in the media requisition to the Employment Exchange etc. and therefore the applicant had no claim for regularization as driver.::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:51:52 :::HCHP -3-
10.We have given our thoughtful consideration to the matter. It is evident from the medical on record that the appointment of the applicant as substitute driver was a mere stop-gap arrangement and did not entitle the applicant who is basically a GDS to continue as such.
.
Moreover the claim in this O.A. and the facts are distinguishable from those in O.A. No.79/2007 decided by the Ernakulum Bench and the citation is not relevant. Hence there is no merit in the present O.A. and the same is rejected. No costs."
of
5. On the face of it, the petitioner has no right to seek regularization or any other relief.
6. rt Having said so, the Tribunal has rightly made the discussion and passed the impugned judgment, needs no interference. The wit petition merits dismissal and is accordingly, dismissed alongwith pending applications, if any.
(Mansoor Ahmad Mir) Chief Justice.
March 03, 2016. (Sureshwar Thakur) (cm Thakur) Judge.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:51:52 :::HCHP