JUDGMENT : Susanta Chatterji, J. - Jhatu Jena, writ Petitioner, serving as a driver of Mobile Van of Orissa State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. has asked for the following reliefs: ...(c) issue rule Nisi calling upon the opp. parties as to why the service of the Petitioner shall not be regularised from the date of his appointment and he shall not get the equal pay and other benefits similar to the other regularly appointed drivers from the date of his first joining; (d) if the opp. parties do not show cause or show insufficient cause issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions, directing the opp. parties to regularise the service of the Petitioner as driver from the date of his first joining and to allow him the equal pay and other benefits as the regularly appointed drivers are getting who are discharging the same and similar duties like the Petitioner and pass such other order which will deem fit and proper for the ends of complete justice 2. It is stated that the Petitioner working as a driver of the Corporation at-different places on daily wage basis at the rate of Rs. 20/- in the district of Sundargarh as detailed in Annexures 2, 3 and 4. The Petitioner made several representations to regularise his service as he has been serving in the Corporation for about a decade. The Petitioner submits that from 1988 till date with the full satisfaction of his authority he has been discharging his duties but his service has not been regularised and as such he is compelled to come to the Writ Court. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed by opposite parties 1 and 2. It is disclosed: inter alia that the Petitioner was appointed as a helper-cum-Kantawalla i.e. to help in the sale of essential commodities and to weigh the said commodities. The Petitioner was never a helper of the Hat sale Van. His appointment was on daily wage basis from June 1988 at the rate of Rs. 20/-. The Petitioner was transferred to work under opposite party No. 2 who assigned him duty to work under Sub-Collector, Bonai and the said Sub-Collector had no authority to appoint the Petitioner to drive mobile van No. OR-B-02-2972 as per Annexure-4 of the writ petition. The Petitioner's appointment was under Annexure-!. 20/-. The Petitioner was transferred to work under opposite party No. 2 who assigned him duty to work under Sub-Collector, Bonai and the said Sub-Collector had no authority to appoint the Petitioner to drive mobile van No. OR-B-02-2972 as per Annexure-4 of the writ petition. The Petitioner's appointment was under Annexure-!. It appears that he obtained a driving licence on 25-5-1989 for which opposite party No. 2 posted him at Lahunip;ua to drive mobile van bearing No. OR-02-A0962 at daily wage of Rs. 40/- until further orders. It is submitted that he was appointed temporarily as per Annexure-5 on 17-5-1994. It is further stated that there was an advertisement for appointment of 16 drivers under the Corporation. In the said advertisement, 10 regular posts were meant for General Candidates, 2 posts were meant for S.C candidates and 4 posts were meant for S.T. candidates. The General Candidates were required to enclose account payee Bank Draft of Rs. 25/-in their application for appointment of driver. Accordingly, the Petitioner offered his candidature as a general candidate in the prescribed form without enclosing account payee Bank Draft. A Xerox copy of the Petitioner's application has been annexed as Annexure B/l-2 to the counter affidavit. Earlier the Petitioner in response to the advertisement filed an undated application for the post of driver as per Annexure-6 to the writ petition. Therefore, the undated application of the Petitioner appeared to be a subsequently manufactured document which was irrelevant and untenable 162 candidates including the Petitioner were short listed due to experience of less than five years. The Petitioner's application was not properly filled up. Column No. 6 and 8 were vacant. Accordingly the Petitioner's case was not considered due to lack of experience and due to non-filing ot Bank Draft as indicated in the advertisement. The engagement of helper- cum- Kantawalla and/or temporary driver did not enable the Petitioner to ask for any regular appointment as prayed for. 4. Patiently we have heard the learned lawyers of the respective parties. Admittedly, the Petitioner has been serving under opposite party No. 2, District Manager-cum-Civil Supplies Officer, Sundargarh for a long period. He was allowed to work as a Helper-cum-Kantawalla and also as a driver. It is not appreciated by this Court that by short-listing the application of the Petitioner for appointment while regular vacancies occurred for the post of driver his case would be ignored. He was allowed to work as a Helper-cum-Kantawalla and also as a driver. It is not appreciated by this Court that by short-listing the application of the Petitioner for appointment while regular vacancies occurred for the post of driver his case would be ignored. We dispose of the writ petition with the direction that if the Petitioner is still working under opposite party No. 2 and there is a regular post available his candidature may be considered for regularisation. If there is no vacancy and the Petitioner was found working against the perennial nature of post leave is granted to him for making a representation and if a post is created the candidature of the Petitioner will be considered on priority basis. With such observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. 5. No cost. C.R. Pal, J. 6. I agree. Writ petition disposed of.