JUDGMENT : 1. Special leave granted. 2. Nathan Lal, the respondent filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Allahabad High Court seeking appointment to the post of Seenchpal in the Irrigation department of the State of Uttar Pradesh. The High Court allowed the writ petition by its order dated April 2, 1991 and directed the State of Uttar Pradesh to appoint the respondent as Seenchpal within one month from the date of the receipt of the order. This appeal by the State of Uttar Pradesh is against the order of the High Court. The High Court in the impugned order observed as under :- "In 1984 a test was held for selection of Seenchpals in Irrigation department, in which the petitioner and other 34 candidates were successful and out of 35 candidates the name of petitioner was placed at Serial No. 11. Out of 35 candidates mentioned in the list 34 have already been appointed, but unfortunately petitioner has not been appoint ed so far. It is further alleged by the petitioner that few other persons who were not in the list have also been appointed, although they were not selected by the selection committee and petitioner's name has been left out on account of extraneous considerations and without any justification. On 6-4-1990 a month's time was granted to the learned standing counsel to file counter-affidavit, but no counter-affidavit was filed. On 4-1-1991 three weeks' further time and no more was granted to learned standing counsel to file counter-affidavit. But no counter-affidavit has been filed so far. In the absence of any counter-affidavit, the allegations made in the writ petition are liable to be accepted, as correct." Since no counter was filed by the State Government, accepting the averments in the writ petition to be correct, the High Court allowed the writ petition. 3. The case set up by the State Government in the special leave petition is that in the year 1984 a test was held for the selection of Seenchpals in the Irrigation department. The respondent, a daily wage employee, also appeared in the test but was not declared successful. It is further stated that 30 candidates on the basis of the merit were sent for training. The respondent, a daily wage employee, also appeared in the test but was not declared successful. It is further stated that 30 candidates on the basis of the merit were sent for training. Later on a second list of 35 candidates was pre pared for the purposes of sending them for training but none of the persons included in the second list were deputed for training. As a matter of fact no action was taken in respect of the candidates in the second list. It has been categorically stated that none of per sons from the second list of 35 persons was sent for training nor any of them was appointed as Seenchpal. According to the State Government the averments made by the respondent Nathan Lal in the writ petition filed by him in the Allahabad High Court were false. In the counter-filed by respondent Nathan Lal in this Court it has been stated as under :- "Although no person out of the select list of 35 has been given appointment to the post of Seenchpal, but the petitioners has concealed the fact that further appointments have been given to those persons whose names appear neither in the select list of 30 candidates nor in the select list of 35 candidates." The respondent has thus admitted that none of the persons included in the list of 35 persons was ever appointed by the State of Uttar Pradesh. 4. It is unfortunate that in spite of sufficient time given by the High Court the State Government did not file counter to the writ petition. We would not have, ordinarily, interfered with the conclusions of the High Court based on the averments made in the writ petition in the absence of any counter by the State Government but keeping in view the fact that the averments made by the respondent Nathan Lal in his writ petition before the High Court were substantially incorrect, we are of the view that the matter should be referred back for the reconsideration of the High Court. 5. We, therefore, allow the appeal, set aside the High Court order dated April 2, 1991 passed in the writ petition and subsequent order dated May 6, 1992 in the review petition and remand the case to the High Court for re consideration afresh. 5. We, therefore, allow the appeal, set aside the High Court order dated April 2, 1991 passed in the writ petition and subsequent order dated May 6, 1992 in the review petition and remand the case to the High Court for re consideration afresh. The State of Uttar Pradesh undertakes to file counter-affidavit to the writ petition before the High Court within eight weeks from the receipt of this order by the High Court. 6. In the facts and circumstances of this case we direct the appellant-State of Uttar Pradesh to pay Rs. 2000/- as costs to the respondent Nathan Lal. Appeal allowed.