CWP No. 18851of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No. 18851 of 2008 Date of decision 12 .1.2010 Sukhjinder Singh ... Petitioner Versus Union of India and others ... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. Vikas Behl,Advocate for the petitioner Mr. H.S.Sethi, Advocate for the respondents 1.To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 2.Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? M.M.KUMAR, J. The petitioner who has been working as driver on daily wage basis in Chandigrh Transport Undertaking has challenged the order dated 8.8.2008 (P.9) passed by the Chandigarh Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for brevity 'the Tribunal') The prayer of the petitioner for regularisation or holding of the dug and driving test afresh for recruitment as driver has been rejected by the Tribunal. After the appointment as daily wage driver the petitioner had approached the Tribunal by filing OA No. 678 CH of 1999 alongwith many other such persons. Before the Tribunal it was agreed by both the parties that the matter was covered a Full Bench judgement of this Court rendered in the case of Ravel Singh v.State of Punjab (CWP No 13650 of 2001 decided on 13.12.2001 ). Accordingly, the petitioner alongwith others were held entitled to the minimum of the pay scale plus dearness allowance admissible thereon for the period they had worked with the Chandigarh Administration as driver. CWP No. 18851of 2008 2 They were allowed to continue till such time the regular appointments are made. After the aforesaid order, the petitioner was allowed to continue. On 19.8.2006 an advertisement was issued (P.4) for filling up the posts of driver on regular basis in the pay scale of Rs. 4020-6200. The petitioner applied and could not qualify the dug and driving test. He then approached the Tribunal alleging malafide against the then Director, Transport Union Territory, Chandigarh. The Tribunal dismissed the Original application by holding that there was no illegality committed by the Selection Committee and no allegations of mala-fide were even levelled against any member of the Selection Committee. Merely because the petitioner had worked on daily wage basis for 8 years cannot constitute the basis for substituting his test which he was required to qualify. The judgement of the Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi 2006(4) SCC 1 has been rightly relied upon by the Tribunal. There is thus no merit in the petition. Dismissed. (M.M.Kumar) Judge (Jitendra Chauhan) 12.1.2010 Judge okg