IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP(T) 5120/2008 (OA 1028/98) Date of Decision : May 04, 2010 Sh. Deep Ram Petitioner Versus H. P. State Electricity Board and others Respondents Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner : Mr. Jivesh Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. For the respondents : Ms. Anjula Khajuria, Advocate, for respondents No. 1 to 3. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) The petitioner was engaged as a Cleaner on work charged basis with the respondent/Board. His services were regularised as such w.e.f. 29.12.1997. It is his grievance that even though he was discharging his duties as a Driver the respondents failed to regularize him as such. His grievance is compounded with the fact that in fact private respondents No. 4 and 5 who also were working as Cleaners stand regularised as Drivers. Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. There is no dispute that the post of a Driver is to be filled up in accordance with the R & P Rules and Regulations. The said post can be filled up only after adhering to the procedure laid down therein. The respondents have clarified that the private respondents who were otherwise eligible for appointment as Driver had applied for the post of a Driver and as such on their own merits they were considered and appointed. There were 20 posts of Drivers which were to be filed up by direct recruits. Neither did the petitioner apply nor was he otherwise eligible to be considered as a departmental candidate for filling up the post of a Driver as his name was not initially sponsored through the Employment Exchange. Petitioner has not rebutted this fact. 3. Further the services of the petitioner were regularised on work charged basis pursuant to the decision rendered by the Apex Court in Mool Raj Upadhyaya versus State of H.P., 1994 Supp.(2) SCC 316. 4. There cannot be any back door entry to the post which is mandatorily required to be filled in accordance with the R & P Rules. The petitioner has got no legally enforceable right for being considered for appointment as a Driver. Simply because he was discharging the duties of a Driver, that fact by itself cannot create a right in him for being appointed to a public post, except in accordance with law. I do not find any merit in the petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. 3 5. The decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner as reported in Gauri Dutt and others versus State of H.P., Latest HLJ 2008 (HP) 366 is not relevant in the facts of the instant case. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. May 04, 2010 (PK)