IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA C.W.P. Nos. 2034, 2043, 2044, 2045, 2046, 2047, 2048, 2062, 2063 and 2064 of 2010 Date of decision: 25th June, 2010. 1. CWP No. 2034 of 2010 Roop Lal ….Petitioner Versus H.P.S.E.B. …Respondent 2. CWP No. 2043 of 2010 Sikender Singh ….Petitioner Versus H.P.S.E.B. …Respondent 3. CWP No. 2044 of 2010 Tilak Raj ….Petitioner Versus H.P.S.E.B. …Respondent 4. CWP No. 2045 of 2010 Dhani Ram ….Petitioner Versus H.P.S.E.B. …Respondent 5. CWP No. 2046 of 2010 Chet Ram ….Petitioner Versus H.P.S.E.B. …Respondent 6. CWP No. 2047 of 2010 Prem Lal ….Petitioner Versus H.P.S.E.B. …Respondent 7. CWP No. 2048 of 2010 Om Chand ….Petitioner Versus H.P.S.E.B. …Respondent 8. CWP No. 2062 of 2010 Subhash Chand ….Petitioner Versus H.P.S.E.B. …Respondent 9. CWP No. 2063 of 2010 Rakesh Kumar ….Petitioner Versus H.P.S.E.B. …Respondent 10.CWP No. 2064 of 2010 Suresh Kumar ….Petitioner Versus H.P.S.E.B. …Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. For the Petitioner: Mr. M.L. Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Ms. Anjula Khajuria, Advocate Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) Petitioners have been working under various class-IV posts under the respondent-Board. While so, in view of the dire need for drivers, it is seen that they have been re-deployed to work as drivers on ad hoc basis. While so, the Board has now passed the impugned Annexure P-3, order, informing that they would be appointed as regular conductors/cleaners and would count their services, rendered as drivers on re-deployment basis, for their promotion as drivers. According to the petitioners, unless regular recruitments to the posts of drivers are made, they cannot be appointed on the posts of conductors and re-deployed to work as drivers. 2. Learned counsel for the Board submits that R&P Rules do not provide for regularization of re-deployed drivers on ad hoc basis as drivers. Be that as it may. It is seen from the amended R&P Rules that recruitment of drivers is by way of 50% direct recruitment, 30% by promotion from amongst the conductors and 20% from amongst the other categories, working in Class-III posts. 3. According to the learned counsel for the Board, Annexure P-3 was issued only to enable the petitioners to work against the posts of conductors and to seek benefit of reserved quota of promotion. The only submission of the petitioners, at this stage, is that until a regular selection to the posts of drivers is made, the petitioners, who had already been working as drivers on re-deployment basis, may be continued as drivers and they may not be compelled to give their willingness to work as conductors, cleaners etc. 4. It is for the petitioners to decide as to whether they should be regularized as conductors/cleaners or to work in the Class-IV posts and then avail the permissible avenues under the Rules. Therefore, it is made clear that the petitioners shall not be compelled to execute an agreement, as a pre-condition for their regularization, against any post(s). It is also made clear that until a regular selection, either by direct recruitment or by promotion, is made, in terms of R&P Rules, subject to the requirement, the petitioners will be permitted to work as drivers, subject to their satisfying the required conditions. All the writ petitions are disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. Copy Dasti. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice 25th June, 2010(K) ( Justice Rajiv Sharma), Judge