1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4248/2008 Kore Kailas Laxman Petitioner Vs. The Hon'ble Registrar,High Court Bombay & Ors. Respondents Mr.A.P.Vanarse i/b Mr.S.B.Malegaonkar and Smt.S.S.Dongre for the petitioner Mrs.M.P.Thakur,AGP for Res.1 & 2 CORAM : J.N.PATEL & MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,JJ. DATED : 20TH APRIL,2009 P.C. . Rule.Rule returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of the parties. 2] This petition is filed challenging the order of the Registrar General of the High Court,Bombay dated 23/1/2008 by which respondent no.3 was selected and appointed as driver in the Family Court,Pune , for which post the petitioner has agitated his claim. It is contended by the petitioner that he was appointed in the Family Court, Pune as a sweeper from 1/6/1997 and as the post of driver in 2 the family court was vacant and there was shortage of drivers his services were engaged by the Family Court from April,2005 as he was holding valid driving license. 3] It is contended by the petitioner that he ought to have been appointed as a driver in the said establishment when there was vacancy. However,despite of his experience,seniority and qualification his claim was ignored and respondent no.3 was appointed as a driver in the Family Court ,Pune. Hence this petition. 4] In reply the respondents have mentioned that the petitioner was appointed as a sweeper and he was asked to work as a driver on Ad-hoc basis to meet the exigency of the services. It is further contended that the application and the claim of the petitioner was before the Committee alongwith the application and the record of respondent no.4. However,after considering annual confidential record and leave record of both the candidates i.e. the petitioner and respondent no.3 , record of respondent no.3 was found to be better than the petitioner . Therefore, on merits respondent no.3 was selected and came to be appointed as driver in the establishment of Family Court,Pune. 5] The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was senior in service and he had good experience as a 3 driver as he was driving the Pool Car of the Family Court Judges. He has further submitted that there was no complaint against the petitioner and when his case was referred to the R.T.O.by the Principal Judge of the Family Court,Pune, the R.T.O.has given fitness certificate as he has cleared requisite qualification to be promoted to the post of driver. He has highlighted that the petitioner has not been paid for the service he has rendered as a driver in the Family Court as he was working on higher pay scale from April,2005 to 31/1/2008. 6] Heard submissions and perused the documents. The record discloses that the case of the petitioner and respondent no.3 were considered by the Advisory Committee and after considering the annual confidential reports and record the Advisory Committee found that the performance of respondent no.3 was better comparing to the petitioner and so he was selected. 7] In so far as the claim of the petitioner for additional pay is concerned we are of the view that it is justified and we direct respondent nos.1 and 2 to pay the additional pay and allowances for which he is entitled under the rules for the period he worked as driver in the Family Court,Pune . 8] Needless to say that the case of the petitioner may be considered if any vacancy arises and if he is found eligible . 4 The petition is disposed of with no order as to costs. (J. N. PATEL , J ) (MRIDULA BHATKAR, J)