Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1561 (ALL)

Ajay Kumar Singh v. State of U. P.

2002-10-25

RAKESH TIWARI

body2002
JUDGMENT : Rakesh Tiwari, J. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the records. 2. By means of this writ petition the Petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: (i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned advertisements dated 14.11.1996 (Annexure-18 to the writ petition) and 10.3.1997 (Annexure-19 to the writ petition) ; (ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondents to hold the interview of the Petitioner in response to the call letter dated 22.12.1989 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) ; (iii) issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case ; (iv) award the costs of the writ petition to the Petitioner. 3. Substantially the same reliefs have been sought in the other two connected writ petitions and as such, all the three writ petitions are being decided by a common judgment. 4. The brief facts of the case are that an advertisement dated 31.12.1988 was issued by the Deputy Director Education VIIth Region, Gorakhpur, for appointment of junior clerks against 32 substantive vacancies in different subordinate offices of the Region. This advertisement was amended by the notification dated 1.3.1989 and further by advertisement dated 16.8.1989, the number of posts were reduced from 32 to 23. The Petitioner appeared for typing test held on 16.10.1989 and a call letter dated 22.12.1989 was issued to him for interview scheduled to be held on 1.1.1990. 5. The State Government by Telex dated 27.12.1989, imposed a ban on direct recruitment. The Deputy Director Education VIIth Region, Gorakhpur, by radio broadcast and publication informed the candidates that in pursuance of the Telex dated 27.12.1989 issued by the State Government, the interview scheduled to be held on 1st, 2nd and 3rd January, 1990, has been postponed. Thereafter by office memorandum dated 8.1.1990 applications were invited from class IV employees for promotion to class III post. 6. The State Government also removed the ban vide Government order dated 24.9.1990, which was imposed on all the direct recruitment earlier by Telex dated 27.12.1989. It is alleged that the Petitioner filed a representation dated 1.1.1991 in the office of the Deputy Director Education VIIth Region, Gorakhpur, for completing the process of selection. 6. The State Government also removed the ban vide Government order dated 24.9.1990, which was imposed on all the direct recruitment earlier by Telex dated 27.12.1989. It is alleged that the Petitioner filed a representation dated 1.1.1991 in the office of the Deputy Director Education VIIth Region, Gorakhpur, for completing the process of selection. However, a selection list dated 26.6.1991 was issued by the Deputy Director Education promoting the selected candidates from class IV to class III post. 7. The State Government issued a radiogram dated 29.6.1991, imposing a ban on all the appointments/recruitment process in all the departments of U.P. Government except U.P. Public Service Commission and the High Court. A similar Government order was issued on 17.7.1991, imposing a ban on all the appointment/recruitment process of non-cadre posts. Complaint/representations were made by the Petitioner and other candidates on 9.10.1992 and 12.10.1992. The District Magistrate, Gorakhpur, vide letter dated 23.10.1992 directed the Deputy Director Education to submit his report about grievance of the Petitioner and the other candidates. By letter dated 24.2.1994, issued by the Assistant Education Director, (Services-II) Uttar Pradesh directed the Deputy Director Education, U.P., Allahabad, that no recruitments/appointments be made unless the posts are re-advertised. In the meantime, no order was passed on the representations of the Petitioner and the State Government issued an order No. 22/43/82-(I)/Ka-2/86 dated 4.9.1996, directing all the departments of the U.P. Government to fill up the vacancies of reserved categories by special recruitment drive between the period 15th July, 1996 to 31st March, 1997. In pursuance of the Government Order, advertisements were made on 14.11.1996 and 10.3.1997 in Hindi daily news-paper "Dainik Jagran" for 38 posts of junior clerks including Stenographers reserved for Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe and Backward Class. 8. The contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that the posts in question in the earlier advertisement dated 31.12.1988, as modified by advertisement dated 1.3.1989 and the subsequent advertisement dated 16.10.1989 have been deprecated. He submits that the advertisement dated 31.12.1988, as amended by advertisement dated 1.3.1989 was neither cancelled nor quashed by the competent court. As such clubbing of the posts in question in the advertisement is illegal and is without jurisdiction, inasmuch as typing test was held and call letters were issued to the Petitioner alongwith other selected candidates. In short, after selection process, there is no rule for holding earlier selection referred to above. As such clubbing of the posts in question in the advertisement is illegal and is without jurisdiction, inasmuch as typing test was held and call letters were issued to the Petitioner alongwith other selected candidates. In short, after selection process, there is no rule for holding earlier selection referred to above. He contents that once the notification was issued in 1989, those vacancies, which were advertised by the said advertisement, are to be filled up according to the reserve quota during the aforesaid period, but in mala fide intention of Respondents to have advertised the posts afresh without cancelling the earlier selection process. He has relied upon the case of Ram Darash Rai and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors. 1995 (2) AWC 1327, in this regard. He has further submitted that it is settled principle of law that old vacancies would be governed by old rules and, therefore, the vacancies of the year 1988-89 would be governed by the Government Orders prevailing at that time. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the case of P. Mahendran and others Vs. State of Karnataka and others, AIR 1990 SC 405 . On the basis of the aforesaid judgment, it is argued that clubbing of the vacancy has been deprecated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of U.P. and others Vs. Smt. Shakuntala Shukla, S.I., Police, (1999) 3 AWC 2574 . 9. In the counter-affidavit, it is stated that a ban has been imposed on direct recruitment and not on selection and it was made clear that those persons, who had filed applications earlier, were not required to submit any further application and those, who had given typing test, were only required to give interview. 10. At the time of admission, no interim order was granted. Mere issuance of call letter for typing test does not vest the Petitioner with any legal or indefensible right to be called for typing test and interview. In the present case, even typing test has not been held, hence the Petitioner has got no right for appointment. 11. From the above narration of facts, it is clear that the Petitioner had sought a direction to the Respondents directing them to hold interview in pursuance of the advertisements. In the present case, even typing test has not been held, hence the Petitioner has got no right for appointment. 11. From the above narration of facts, it is clear that the Petitioner had sought a direction to the Respondents directing them to hold interview in pursuance of the advertisements. The advertisements dated 14.11.1996 (Annexure-18 to the writ petition) and 10.3.1997 (Annexure-19 to the writ petition) are for appointment of Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe and Backward Class : whereas the Petitioner was a general candidate, who had applied against the advertisement dated 31.12.1988. In the writ petition, he has nowhere mentioned that he was a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe candidate. 12. In view of the reasons stated above, the Petitioner cannot be called for typing test and interview after a period of 14 years. It is impliedly treated to be cancelled by efflux of time and conduct of the parties particularly in view of the fact that subsequently advertisements have been issued and the appointments have been made. 13. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition has no force and is dismissed. No order as to costs.