IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 3218 of 2010 alongwith CWP Nos. 1934 and 2382 of 2010. Date of decision: 4.8..2010. 1. CWP No. 3218 of 2010. Mahender Singh ..Petitioner. Versus HRTC ...Respondent. 2. CWP No. 1934 of 2010 Ajay Kumar and Ors. ..Petitioners. Versus HRTC ...Respondent. 3. CWP No. 2382 of 2010. Rakesh Kumar and Ors. ..Petitioners. Versus HRTC ...Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh , Judge. For the Petitioner (s) : Mr. Adarsh K. Vashista, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. R.K. Bawa, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Adarsh Sharma, Advocate. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice (Oral) The petitioners are candidates who participated in the selection process for appointment to the post of Transport Multi-purpose - 2 - Assistants under the HRTC. The TMPA are engaged as conductors. According to the petitioners they had cleared the written test and while they were awaiting the logical culmination of the process by interview and preparation of the select list, the respondents have taken a decision to cancel the selection process and as such to go for afresh recruitment as per the impugned notification. It is submitted that the present petitioners were legitimately expecting the finalisation of the selection already commenced and hence the respondents may be directed to finalise the process of selection as per the original notification. 2. Mr. R.K. Bawa, learned Senior Advocate along with. Mr. Adarsh Sharma learned counsel for the Corporation submits that in view of the financial condition of the HRTC, the matter was considered afresh for a different mode of engagement of conductors. It is submitted that instead of appointing TMPA by the Corporation, a new process has been adopted by engaging Bus Sahayaks. The method of recruitment is different, the pay package is different and there is no employer and employee relationship. It is further submitted that in the process, the Corporation would have a financial gain to the estimated tune of Rs.66,00,000/-, approximately. 3. The petitioners have no legal right to get appointment. No doubt, they had a right to be considered for appointment. But once the selection process as such has been cancelled on relevant considerations, the petitioners cannot compel the respondents to complete the process of appointment which is prejudicial to the interests of the employer. The situation would have been different in - 3 - case after cancelling the selection process already commenced when the process having reached mid way, very same process is initiated afresh and on the very same terms. Here the process is different, terms are different and even the status is different. In that view of the matter, we do not find any legal infirmity in the impugned process initiated by the HRTC. The respondents have taken into consideration all the relevant aspects and no irrelevant factor has crept in the process. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners may also be permitted to participate in the selection process. In case they are otherwise eligible in terms of the notification, certainly they are also entitled to participate in the process. However, if any of the petitioners have crossed the age in the meanwhile, it will be open to them to approach the Corporation for relaxation in their case since they had participated in the earlier selection process in which case the Managing Director will consider whether the rigour of age can be relaxed in their case. All the writ petitions are disposed of as above. Copy dasti. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. (Justice Kuldip Singh), August 4, 2010. Judge. (GR/VT)