Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 352 (ALL)

Mohd. Moveen v. State of U. P.

2004-02-23

RAKESH TIWARI

body2004
RAKESH TIWARI, J. ( 1 ) HEARD Counsel for the parties and perused the record. ( 2 ) THE respondent No. 3 advertised 14 posts of Junior Clerk and 2 posts of Stenographer to be filled by candidates belonging to backward Classes under backlog quota through Newspaper amar Ujala. The petitioner applied for the post Junior Clerk and was declared duly selected and his name was at Sl. No. 16 in the merit list. It is alleged that the candidates at Sl. Nos. 1 to 14 in the merit list were issued appointment letters against the advertised posts of Junior Clerk. The candidates at sl. Nos. 15 to 18 were kept in waiting list. It is. alleged that on 30. 6. 2003 another merit list of Stenographer belonging to Backward Classes was declared. One candidate Mr. Ranjeet Singh whose name was at Sl. No. 11 in the merit list of Junior Clerk has also been selected for the post of Stenographer. He has preferred to join the post of Stenographer and waived his claim over the post of Junior Clerk. Consequently, the post vacated by Sri Ranjeet singh was given to Km. Manju whose name was at Sl. No. 15 in the waiting list and she has joined the post on the basis of appointment letter dated 2. 8. 2003. Another candidate Sri Kamar alam whose name was at Sl. No. 4 in the aforesaid list of Junior Clerk. voluntarily resigned from the post of Janior Clerk on 16. 7. 2003. On 21. 8. 2003 the resignation of Sri Kamar Alam was accepted by respondent No. 3. On 22. 9. 2003 on the personal request of the petitioner. Respondent No. 3 wrote a letter to respondent No. 4 for seeking permission of appointment on two vacant posts of Junior Clerk one for Scheduled Caste and other for candidate belonging to backward Caste. ( 3 ) IN the mean time, a ban was imposed by the State Government on recruitment on 29. 8. 2003. The aforesaid ban was lifted on 15. 1. 2004 by the State Government. The petitioner moved a representation dated 4. 2. 2004 in this regard before respondent No. 3 but till date no order has been passed by respondent No. 3. ( 4 ) THE aforesaid representation of the petitioner is still pending. 8. 2003. The aforesaid ban was lifted on 15. 1. 2004 by the State Government. The petitioner moved a representation dated 4. 2. 2004 in this regard before respondent No. 3 but till date no order has been passed by respondent No. 3. ( 4 ) THE aforesaid representation of the petitioner is still pending. The ban having been lifted for the reasons stated above respondent No, 4 is directed to decide the representation of the petitioner dated 4. 2. 2004 by a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. ( 5 ) WITH the aforesaid directions, the writ petitioner is disposed of. No order as cost . .