asn 1 PIL-87 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY. ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 87 OF 2010 Sureh Shripat Mhatre. ...Petitioner. Vs. Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation for Greater Mumbai through the Municipal Commissioner. ...Respondents. WITH PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 9911 OF 2010 Raghunath Damu Sapkale and ors. ...Petitioners. Vs. The Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation and ors. ...Respondents. Mr.Sanjay D.Tokade for the Petitioners. Mr.R.S.Apte, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Sandesh Deshpande for Respondent No.1. Mr. C.R.Sonawane, AGP. for Respondent State. Mr. A.S.Patil for Respondent No.3 in (OS) PIL No.87/2010. Mr. Prakash Devdas for the Petitioners in PIL No.87/2010. Mrs. S.S.Dandekar, AGP. For Respondent No.5 State in PIL No. 87/2010. CORAM: MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J., & MRS. ROSHAN DALVI, J. DATED : 30 November 2011. P.C. The grievance of the petitioner in this Public Interest Petition is that though the selection process for recruitment of drivers and conductors for Navi Maumbai Municipal Transport Service under asn 2 PIL-87 the Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation was undertaken three times, the Transport Committee has not made the regular recruitment of drivers and conductors and instead recruited daily wages employees and proposes to regularize them contrary to the well settled legal position of law as held in Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Vs. Umadevi (3) and ors. (2006) 4 SCC 1. 2 Affidavit in reply is filed by the Municipal Commissioner stating that on account of the decision of the Transport Committee to cancel the examination no regular recruitment has been made. 3 As far as Transport Committee is concerned, the affidavit in reply has been filed by the Chairman of the Transport Committee. It is stated that when the first selection process is undertaken in the year 2006, the Writ Petition was filed before this Court and this Court had directed not to make any recruitment without making the appointment of the candidates with disabilities. On the second occasion, in the year 2008, there was no advertisement for the post of drivers and conductors and the selection process for other posts was cancelled as the Chairman and the Committee members were not taken into confidence and no advertisement and no preference was given to the project affected persons residing in Navi Mumbai. It is further stated by the Transport Committee that on the third occasion advertisement was issued on 23 August 2009 for recruiting 135 staff including the drivers and conductors but the advertisement mentioned that the drivers and conductors will get lump sum salary instead of salary in the regular pay scale as indicated for the other posts. The contention of the Chairman of the Transport Committee is that apart from the above fact in the advertisement, another reason for calling upon selection process is that asn 3 PIL-87 there was mass copying reported to have been taken place at the time of written examination and the CCTV cameras were not installed at the examination hall to monitor the ongoing situation of the examination. Therefore, the said process was called upon by adopting the Resolution dated 24 January 2010. 4 At the hearing of this petition, the learned counsel for the Transport Manager relied on the affidavit filed by the Transport Manager of the Transport Undertaking. Reliance is placed on the following averments made in Paragraph 12 of the reply affidavit. “I say that the then Transport Manager has conducted the administrative process for appointment of conductors and drivers in pursuance of the advertisements published in the newspaper. I say that the said procedure of recruitment was done in a very proper and legal manner and there was a clear transparency in the matter. I say that there was no fraud or cheating conducted either by the employees of the Undertaking or by any of the candidates appearing for interview. I say that the said Transport Manager has clearly stated regarding how the said recruitment procedure was fairly conducted which is also clear from Resolution No.51 of 2010 annexed at Exhibit-G to the petition”. 5 Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the aforesaid pleadings, it appears that there is dispute about the manner in which the written examination was conducted. Though the transport committee has not placed any material on record in support of their case except resolution dated 24 January 2010, it appears that only allegations of mass copying are levelled by the Transport Committee, this Court would not sit in appeal over the asn 4 PIL-87 decision of the Transport Committee on such factual aspect. At the same time, having regard to the fact that selection process was initiated way back in the year 2006 and no progress has been made till today and all that the transport committee proposes to do is to issue another advertisement which is also not done so far. 6 Interests of justice will be served if the respondent- authorities are directed to re-conduct the written examination of all the candidates who had applied in response to the advertisement dated 23 August 2009. In other words, the respondent authorities shall not issue any fresh advertisement but shall proceed with the selection process which was already initiated as per the advertisement issued on 23 August 2009 and call for written examination all the candidates who applied in response to the said advertisement and were found to be eligible for the said examination. It is further directed that the candidates who were found to be eligible on that occasion will not be made ineligible or disqualified on the ground of they having crossed upper age limit on account of cancellation of or delay in the recruitment process or selection process. 7 In order to ensure that all the candidates who had applied in response to the advertisement which was issued on 23 August 2009 to appear at the written examination again, besides sending individual intimations to all the eligible candidates, the respondents shall also issue advertisement in at least two daily newspapers having wide circulation in the area informing that all the candidates who were found to be eligible for the written examination which was held on 13 December 2009 shall be again required to appear at the examination. The date of the written examination shall be notified in the said public notice asn 5 PIL-87 published atleast one month in advance of the examination. 8 The respondents shall also endeavor to complete the selection process for the above posts as expeditiously as possible and preferably within four months from today. 9 In view of the above directions, Writ Petition No.9911 of 2010 filed by individual candidates also stands disposed of. (CHIEF JUSTICE) (MRS. ROSHAN DALVI, J.)