Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

In our opinion, the stand as taken by the appellants before the writ Court and even in this appeal has been thoroughly unjustified. A bare look at the vacancy position, as ultimately placed on record, DBSAW No.531/2009.

RSRTC & Anr. Vs. Kashi Ram [ 10 ] under the orders of this Court, by way of the affidavit dated 24.01.2012 (the relevant contents reproduced hereinabove) makes it crystal clear that right from 01.04.1991, there were available substantial number of vacancies with the appellants. We may hasten to point out that in the order dated 15.09.2011, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court had even directed filing of a list of all the drivers, who were appointed pursuant to the advertisement bearing No.42/91; and the anxiety of the Court while directing filing of the yearwise vacancy position was to examine the availability of vacancies, which could have been filled up pursuant to the advertisement in question. The appellants have yet chosen to withhold several of the relevant and material facts and have not shown as to what treatment was given to the increased number of vacancies in the years 1992 and 1993 and even 1996 and 1997; and how many regular appointments were made? The vague and uncertain suggestions on the part of the appellants lead us to infer that the appellants have not come out forthright on all the relevant facts whether before the writ Court or in this intra-court appeal. In the ultimate analysis, the observations as made by the learned Single Judge (as extracted hereinbefore) appear to be perfectly justified; and the stand of the appellants regarding non-availability of the vacancies does not inspire confidence. It remains undeniable and indisputable that immediately after the process of selection under the advertisement No.42/91, the appointments were given and the persons like the respondent continued for years together without DBSAW No.531/2009.

RSRTC & Anr. Vs. Kashi Ram [ 11 ] any gap which could not have happened if the vacancies were not available. We further agree with the learned Single Judge that when the vacancies are created to satisfy permanent and perennial work of the establishment for an indefinite period then, such a vacancy is nothing but a permanent vacancy, though no formal declaration would have been made in this regard. In any case, in the present matter, as noticeable from the vacancy statement submitted by the appellants themselves, substantial number of rather increased vacancies were available in the years 1992-93. They could not have continued the writ petitioner as a daily-rate employee particularly when his was not a case of back-door entry; and he was appointed after due process of selection; and the advertisement itself stated that upon availability of vacancies, regular pay scale would be given.