Judgment Shamimul Hoda, J. 1. This writ application has been filed by the petitioners under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing the notice for auction of the Bus stand at Vaishali situated at Ramashish Chowk, Hajipur. 2. The petitioners, who are nineteen in number, after serving as members of the Defence Forces, retired from Military Service after completion of their period of service during the years 1984-86. All the petitioners are below the age of fifty years. The Government has framed an scheme for rehabilitation of the ex-military personnel, wherein provision has been made for employment of ex-military personnels by fixing the quotas and they are to continue in service till the age of retirement fixed by various governments and Government Undertakings. 3. Ramashish Chowk is situated on the Junction of Chapra-Muzaffarpur road and the road connected from North Bihar and South Bihar by mahatma Gandhi Setu. Motor Vehicles of all descriptions passes through the said Chowk where passengers also change their vehicles for going to different directions Respondent No.1, the District Magistrate, Vaishali, who is also President of Bus Stand Committee. Vaishali, by virtue of the powers vested in him under Sec.76 of the Motor Vehicles Act.1939, read with Rule 88 of the Bihar Motor Vehicles Rule, 1940 created three different halting stands for different category of the vehicles for the convenience of the travelling passenges and by Notification dated 26/3/1987 respondent no.1 fixed the fee for halting places of different categories of vehicles relating to different routes differently A copy of the said Notification is annexure 2 to this writ application. It is said that the said halting places were decided to be managed departmentally as Government Bus stand and for administrative purposes a separate section as "bus stand section" was created by respondent No.1 under Vaishali Collectorate Large area of land at different places were ear-marked for halting of vehicles for different routes for which large number of persons were required for the management of different baiting places For the management of halting places respondent No.1 decided in his statutory functions that the same should be managed by ex-military men who should be appointed to the posts of assistant Manager. Toll Collector and Gate-Man. Pursuant to the said decision a notice for appointment was published by respondent No.1 in the year 1987. Toll Collector and Gate-Man. Pursuant to the said decision a notice for appointment was published by respondent No.1 in the year 1987. A copy of the said notice is Annexure 3 to this petition. As the petitioners were waiting for employment, the concerned District soldier Welfare Army Board under the rehabilitation scheme for the exservice men recommended the names of several persons including some of the petitioners for appointment and twenty persons were appointed from amongst the ex-service men by Memo No.52 dated 4th May, 1987. A copy of the aforesaid memo, is annexed as Annexure 4 to the wtit petition. As the remuneration for the work was poor several persons, who were appointed on 4th May, 1987 left the job and, accordingly, further appointments were made from time to time from amongst the members of the ex-military persons as and when vacancy arose. Various appointment letters have been annexed as Annexures 4/1 to 4/7 to the writ petition. Ever since their appointment the petitioners have been regularly and honestly discharging their duties in giving protection to the passenger from collecting tools and looking to the convenience and safety of the travelling public. From 1987 to 1991 there has been an average toll collection of rupees ten lacs per annum and there has never been any complaint against any of the petitioners of any misconduct. While the petitioners were working they were surprised and shocked to see the advertisement published on 27/8/1992 in the daily Hindustan, as contained in Annexure 1, to the effect that the Government Bus Stand, Hajipur, is going to be auctioned to the private person. It has been submitted that the condition of the auction does not protect the service conditions of the petitioners and as such they have apprehension that they would be thrown out from the employment, if the settlement of the Bus stand is made to the private person. The petitioners represented before the respondent No.1 specifically pointing out that after serving for five years they are going to be thrown out of the employment and as such they cannot be rehabilitated anywhere else A delegation of the petitioners also met with respondent no.1 who merely assured that he would request the private settlee to allow the petitioners to continue in employment. It is stated that such continuance of the petitioners would be at the mercy of the private employer which will not be a condition of settlement. 4. A supplementary affidavit has been filed wherein it has been stated that the total amount realised as fee from the vehicles halting at Ramashish chowk Government Bus stand from March, 1987 to August, 1992 was rupees fifty three iacs thirty four thousand four hundred sixteen out of which the monthly wages paid to the petitioners, who are engated for the management of the Bus Stand, comes to about rupees ten thousand only and the total payment made to the staff of the said Bus Stand from 1987 to august, 1992, was only rupees ten lacs. It has been further stated that during the last six years the total expenditure on receipt, coupons and other stationery relating to the management of Bus Stand have been only rupees fifty thousand. It has been also stated in supplementary-affidavit that total amount spent for the benefit of passenger during the last six years out of collection of rupees fifty three lacs thirty four thousand four hundred sixteen had been only about rupees two lacs for levelling the grounds and bricks soling of the area but to arrangements have been made for passengers shed, urinals and laterines. Thus the total expenses over the services of the person paying fee out of the collection during the last six years have been less than five per cent. The attempt to settle the bus Stand at higher prices is merely to the benefit of private contractors and/or for augmenting the general revenue of the State which is not permissible in law. 5. Counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No I wherein the stand taken is the petitioners are not the Government servants as the Bus Stand in question is under the management of a Bus Stand samiti whose president is respondent No.1 and it was a decision of the samiti to appoint ex-military men purely on temporary and experimental basis to collect toll and manage the Bus Stand. As the whole endeavour was at an initial stage, there is no question of giving service protection to the petitioners Jn course of time it was found that this method of toll collection and management was not workable because in connivance with the petitioners outsiders were also collecting tolls and actual amount realised by the petitioners were not being deposited with the Samiti. Keeping this in view the Samiti decided to auction the Bus Stand on a fixed annual return at a value which is expected to be the actual collection from the public at the Bus stand. It has been stated that the Samiti was created by the District Administration with the Collector as its head only to aid the latter in the management of the Bus Stand The minute of the meeting of the Samiti dated 24/8/1992 has been annexed as Annexure A to the counter-affidavit The stand taken is that for development of the bus stand and for providing better civic amenities to the passengers and its maintenance and managements heavy expenditure is to be incurred. The estimate for development of Bus stand is rupees seven lacs four hundred eighty and an amount of rupees three lacs twenty six thousand two hundred has been sanctioned for payment to Public Works Department for the work undertaken by them The Samiti has passed the plan and estimate for pucca drainage at the place A copy of the resolution of the Samiti have been annexed as Annexure-B and B/1 to the counter-affidavit. The proposal to auction the Bus stand is in the larger interest of the public and for the benefit of the users of the Bus stand and the allegation to the contrary by the petitioners is not correct The details of expenditure given by the petitioners are not correct. An account of the expenditure has been annexed as Annexures C and C/1 to the counter-affidavit. 6. Respondent No.4, the Bus Stand Samiti, Vaishali at Hajipur, has also fixed a counter-affidavit. The stand taken therein is that notice contained in Annexure I is in public interest with a view to obtain maximum revenue for improvement of civic amenities and other facilities at hajipur Bus Stand/halting places. 6. Respondent No.4, the Bus Stand Samiti, Vaishali at Hajipur, has also fixed a counter-affidavit. The stand taken therein is that notice contained in Annexure I is in public interest with a view to obtain maximum revenue for improvement of civic amenities and other facilities at hajipur Bus Stand/halting places. The administration, with a view to improve the management of the Bus Stand, and in public interest, constituted a bus Stand Committee under the District Magistrate, Vaishali, as its president and several other officials as its members. The Bus Stand at ramashish Chowk, on Government land, was started on 27/3/987. At the initial stage there was direct collection of tolls by employment of Collectorate staff tn such an arrangement the District Administration felt administrative difficulties and as such the Samiti declared to manage the Bus stand by employing some persons other than the staff of Collectorate for collecting tolls etc Vide resolution of the Samiti dated 3/4/1987 several posts were created such as Manager, Assistant Manager, Tolls Collector, gate-man, Water-man, Sweeper and Peon It was also resolved that the engagement shall be purely temporary and will be liable to be terminated without any notice. It was further resolved that for the post of Manager, assistant Managers, Toll Collectors and Gate-man preference would be given to ex-military personnel and in this context a list was obtained from the Sainik Board After examination of papers and on interview the samiti engaged, on fixed monthly salary, the petitioners After some time it was found that in the system of direct collection by engaging persons like the petitioners several irregularities and illegalities were being committed by them in connivance with unauthorised persons and the said system of collecting toll was not fruitful and satisfactory. Emergence of such trend created vested interest which also caused law and order problem. The loss of revenue was also against public interest and was bound to hinder the development works. Under these circumstances, the Samiti, consisting of responsible officials, in its meeting held on 24/8/1992 under the Presidentship of the District Magistrate took a beneficial policy decision to change the system of management and the Samiti decided to hold auction of the Bus stand and land on which the Hajipur Bus Stand/halt was situated for a period of one year from 16/9/1992 to 15/9/1993. Pursuant to said decision public notice was advertised in newspapers, petitioners were never appointed as Government Servants They were appointed by respondent No.1 as he was the President of the Bus Stand Samiti on the post created by the Samiti and not on the post created by the Government of Bihar The engagement of the petitioners was purely temporary which was liable to be terminated at any time without any notice. The engagement of the petitioners has none of the attributes of the Government service. The provision of the Motor vehicles Acts and Rules do not concern the rights of the petitioners. There was no legal bar upon the administrative power of the district administration and it is the Samiti to take a new policy decision for management of government land being used as Bus Stand The petitioners were not provided with employment under any scheme for resettlement of ex-military personnel. The petitioners have no right to demand that the District administration must continue with the same system of collection and management of Bus Stand which is not in the interest of public. The Samiti was constituted for proper exercise of administrative function and it was, by the resolurion of the said Samiti, decided to give preference to retired military personnels in them matter of management on temporary basis without following the necessary formilities and observations of rules meant for appointment to Government posts. As the present system of collection of tolls was not found satisfactory the Samiti, on a careful consideration, decided to change the policy decision and to introduce the new system in which the accountability etc is much more clear and defined. 7. A reply to the counter-affidavit of respondents No.1 and 4 has been filed by the petitioners wherein it has been stated that the so called bus Stand Committee does not have any statutory existence and the power vested in the Collector could not be delegated by the Collector to any other person or body of the person. It was merely an advisory committee which is evident from Memo No.889 dated 24/8/1992, petitioners were appointed by the Collector, respondent No.1, and not by the Committee. It was merely an advisory committee which is evident from Memo No.889 dated 24/8/1992, petitioners were appointed by the Collector, respondent No.1, and not by the Committee. Under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act read with Rule 88 of the Bihar Motor vehicles Rules the Collector have been vested with the statutory powers and any delegation of the powers vested in him by the State could not be delegated by him to any so called Committee and the same is not permissible in law. The advertisement, as contained in Annexure 3, and the requisition to the Soldier Army Welfar Board for appointments were made by the collector, Vaishali, and not by any Bus Stand Committee. The appointments letter were issued by the Collector and not by the Chairman of any committee Petitioners were duly appointed by the Collector, Vaishali, in discharge of the State administrative functions and as such he is bound to protect and safeguard the interest of the petitioners. The services of the petitioners could not be terminated without giving specific reasons The plea in the counter-affidavit that all the collections were not being deposited are not correct. It has been further slated that the amount of fee realised has to be ear-marked for rendering services to the Bus Stand itself which is not being done in the present case. It has been further stated that from the expenditure chart annexed in the counter-affidavit it would appear that out of total collection rupees ten lacs have been spent on general election and rupees seventy five thousand have been spent on law and order which could not have been done from the fee collected The power to realise fee could not be realised for raising the general revenue of the State. 8. A further supplemental affidavit has been filed on 25/11/1992 after the argument concluded and order was reserved annexing a latter written by the Sainik Kalyan Nedeshalaya in which it has been stated that the case of the petitioners be considered sympathetically so that they not be thrown out of the service. Photostat copy of office Memorandum of the ministry of Home Affairs have also been annexed which provides for recruitment of staff against vacancies reserved for ex-service men through Zila sainik Boards. 9. Photostat copy of office Memorandum of the ministry of Home Affairs have also been annexed which provides for recruitment of staff against vacancies reserved for ex-service men through Zila sainik Boards. 9. Mr, Karuna Nidhan Keshav, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, has challenged that the notice, Annexure 1, is illegal inasmuch as if the Bus Stand is auctioned the petitioners will be thrown out of the Job. The petitioners were appointed by the Collector, vaisbali, and as such they are Government Servants and they cannot be thrown out from the job in the manner which is being done. 10. Mr Shiv Kirti Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.4, has submitted that the status of the petitioners are not that of the Government Servants as engagement of the petitioners were not against posts which were duly sanctioned by the Government in accordance with law. The respondent No.1 for the Management of the Bus Stand constitured a Committee consisting of officials and the said Committee, in its resolution dated 3/4/1987, decided to have posts of Manager, Assistant manager, Tolls Collector, Gateman, Water Man, Sweeper and Peons and also decided for engagement to the post of Manager. Assistant Manager, toll Collector and Gate-man preference be givin to retired military personnels. Pursuant to the said decision of the Committee, respondent No.1, who is the Chairman of the said Committee, appointed the petitioners purely on temporary basis and on fixed remuneration as fixed by the Samiti and the services were to be terminated at any time without any notice. To support his contention learned counsel has produced the proceeding book which shows that such a decision was taken. The payment of the persons so engaged were to be made out of the tolls collected. 11. In order to see that the petitioners are Government servants the petitioners have to establish that they have been appointed against the posts which were sanctioned by the State Government. No document has been brought on the record to show that the post on which the petitioners were working were created by the State Government nor any decision of the Government has been brought on the record that such posts are to be created for the management of the Bus Stand. Merely because appointment letters were issued by the Collector will not confer the status of government servants on the petitioners. Merely because appointment letters were issued by the Collector will not confer the status of government servants on the petitioners. On the other hand, the respondents have brought on the record documents to show that the appointments were made pursuant to the decision of the Hajipur Bus Stand Advisory committee and as such they cannot be said to have acquired the status of a Government Servant. Moreover, no document has been produced to show that their salary etc. were to be paid out of the consolidated fund of the state. On their own showing, their salary are being paid out of the toll collected from the Bus Stand. For the aforesaid reasons, the contention of the learned counsel that the petitioners have acquired status of Government servants cannot be accepted. 12. It has been next contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Bihar motor Vehicles Rules it is the District Magistrate who has been delegated with the power by the State to make arrangement for the management of the Bus Stand and once the same having been done the same cannot be done at the instance of Bus Stand Committee which has no legal entity under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and Bihar Motor Vehicles Rules and the District Magistrate cannot delegate his power to the said so called samiti. On the other hand, Mr. Shiv Kirti Singh, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No 4, has contended that there is no bar in the formation of the Bus Stand Committee which was done by the administration in public interest and with a view to improve the management of the Bus Stand The purpose of the said Commitee is only consultative and there is no question of delegation of power in the said Committee, The power has to be exercised by the Collector. The Collector is the President of the said Committee which consist of officials as members. 13. Rule 88 of the Bihar Motor Vehicles Rules, 1940 , provides for stands and halting places and is as follows:- "88. The Collector is the President of the said Committee which consist of officials as members. 13. Rule 88 of the Bihar Motor Vehicles Rules, 1940 , provides for stands and halting places and is as follows:- "88. fa) The District Magistrate by Notification in the official gazette, or by the erection of traffic signs which are permitted for the purpose under sub-section (1) of Sec.75 of the Act or both, may in respect of the taking up or getting down of passengers, or both, by public service vehicles, or by any specified class of public service vehicles,- (i) conditionally or unconditionally prohibit the use of any specified place or of any place of specified nature or class, or ; (ii) require that within the limits of any municipality, notified are or cantonment, or within such other limits as may be specified in the notification, certain specified staods or halting places only shall be so used ; provided that no place which is privately owned shall be so notified except with the previous consent in writing of the owner thereof. (b) When a place has been notified or has been demarcated by traffic signs, as being a stand or halting place for the purpose of this rule, then notwithstanding that land is in possession of any person, the place shall subject to the provisions of these rules, be deemed to be a public place within the meaning of the act and the District Magistrate may enter into an agreement with, or grant a licence to any person for the provision or maintenance of such place including the provision or maintenance of the building or works necessary thereto, subject to the termination of the agreement or licence forthwith upon the breach of any condition thereof and may otherwise make regulations or give direction for the conduct of such place including regulations or directions- (i) prescribing the fees to be paid by the owners and passengers of public service vehicles using the place and providing for the receipt and disposal of such fees ; (ii) specifying the public service vehicles or the class of public service vehicles which shall use the place or which shall not use the place ; (iii) appointing a person to be the manager of the place and specifying the powers and duties of the manager ; (iv) requiring the owner of the land, or the local authority, as the case may be, to erect such shelters, lavotories and latrines and to execute such other works as may be specified in the regulations in the direction and to maintain the same in a serviceable, clean and sanitary condition ; (v) prohibiting the use of such place by specified persons or -other than specified persons. 14. Thus, from the perusal of the aforesaid rule it is abundanty clear that the District Magislrate is the authority under the rule to make provision for maintenance of stands and halting places. In the present case, the steps are being taken by the District Magistrate. The Bus Stand Samiti is only a Consultative Committee and as such there is no question of delegation of the powers of the District Magistrate to the said Committee. The rules clearly envisages that the District Magistrate may enter into agreement to any person for the maintenance of the stands/halting places or he can make provision otherwise. The Bus Stand Samiti is only a Consultative Committee and as such there is no question of delegation of the powers of the District Magistrate to the said Committee. The rules clearly envisages that the District Magistrate may enter into agreement to any person for the maintenance of the stands/halting places or he can make provision otherwise. In the present case, by way of temporary arrangment, the Hajipur Bus Stand is being managed by the District Magistrate by engaging the petitioners on the advice of the Vaishali Bus Stand samiti and this temporary arrangement will not preclude the District Magistrate from settling the Bus Stand through auction for the better management of the same. It is the case of the respondents that the present system of management has not been working well and is not in the interest of public and as such a better system has been envisaged by auctioning the Bus Stand. The respondent District Magistrate cannot be precluded from taking action for better management of the Bus Stand in public interest. If the present temporary system has not been working well the District Magistrate cannot be directed to continue with the same system which is not in the interest of public. Thus, this contention of the learned counsel has also no substance, 15. Learned counsel for the petitioners has, lastly, submitted that the respondent District Magistrate could not alter the rate of fee for profit to the private persons to whom it is to be settled at twelve lacs when the collection during the last four years consistently has been rupees ten lacs as the same has no nexus with the services received by the public. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 has submitted that the petitioners have no right to challenge the same as the present step is being taken for the better management of the Hajipur Bus Stand and by doing so better facilities are to be provided. 16. This contention of the learned counsel also has to be rejected as the petitioners, who have been engaged for the management of the Bus stand, cannot challenge Annexure 1 on the ground that the said Bus Stand is going to be auctioned at higher rate than what was being fetched during the previous years. 16. This contention of the learned counsel also has to be rejected as the petitioners, who have been engaged for the management of the Bus stand, cannot challenge Annexure 1 on the ground that the said Bus Stand is going to be auctioned at higher rate than what was being fetched during the previous years. As it has been noticed that for better management of the Bus Stand Annexure 1 had been issued and, in that view of the matter, the petitioners cannot raise a grievance that the Bus Stand cannot be auctioned at a higher reserve Jama. Moreover, Rule 88, as noticed aforesaid, clearly gives power to the District Magistrate to make arrangement for maintenance of Bus Stand either through agreement or otherwise and as such there appears to be no illegality in Annexure 1. Moreover, a policy decision has been taken to settle the Bus Stand by auction and this decision cannot be challenged by the petitioners. 17. In the result, there is no merit in this application which is dismissed accordingly. In the facts of this case, there shall be no order as to costs. Application dismissed.