JUDGMENT (Per: Hon'ble J.C.S. Rawat, J.) 1. This Special Appeal, under Rule 5 Chapter VIII of the High Court Rules, has been filed against the judgment and order dated 16-06-2006 passed in Review Application No. 12 of 2006 and Judgment and Order dated 30-07-2004 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 2604 of 2001 (S/S), Sunil Singh Vs. G.B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology, Pant Nagar and another, whereby the learned Single Judge has disposed of the writ petition with the observation that the petitioner may approach to the Board of Management of the University which may consider the case of the petitioner sympathetically as a special case, keeping in view of the peculiar circumstances of the case, and if the Regulations of the University permits, the Board of Management shall grant relaxation in the age of the petitioner. 2. A writ petition bearing No. 2604 (S/S) of 2001 was filed before the learned Single Judge by the writ petitioner (appellant) for the following reliefs : "i. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner as Trainee Assistant (Animal Husbandry) K.V.K. in Govind Ballabh Pant University of Agriculture and Technology, Pant Nagar on the post reserved for O.B.C. candidates. ii. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to appoint any other person except the petitioner and to make the appointment according to the recommendation of the old selection committee. iii. To issue any other writ, order or direction as in the facts and circumstances of the case this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper. iv. To award the cost of writ petition to the petitioner." 3. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents/Govind Ballabh Pant University of Agriculture and Technology, Pant Nagar (hereinafter referred as University) issued an advertisement for appointment on the post of Trainee Assistant (Animal Husbandry) in K.V.K. In pursuance of the advertisement 72 candidates applied for two posts, one for general category and one reserved for O.B.C. The petitioner applied for selection in O.B.C. category. Several candidates appeared for the interview. One Selection Panel was prepared in respect of the general category and one selection panel was prepared in respect of O.B.C. category. Several candidates appeared for the interview. One Selection Panel was prepared in respect of the general category and one selection panel was prepared in respect of O.B.C. category. In general category candidates one Sri A.K. Pandey was placed at serial No.1 and Shiv Kumar was placed at serial No.2. Sri A.K. Pandey was given posting as Trainee Assistant at K.V.K. Lohaghat in general category candidates. In respect of O.B.C. candidates, Sri Juned Akhtar was placed at Serial No.1 and the petitioner (appellant) was placed at serial No.2. Sri Juned Akhtar joined as an O.B.C. candidate at K.V.K., Sahjahanpur. After sometime, he resigned from the post of Trainee Assistant, as such, the said post of Assistant Trainee fell vacant. The petitioner being at serial No.2 in the panel prepared for the O.B.C. candidates, has requested the respondents to give him posting on the post ofTrainee Assistant at K.V.K., Shahjahanpur against the post which fell vacant after resignation of Sri Juned Akhtar. It was alleged that the University decided to reconstitute the Selection Committee to decide the issue as to which of the person, out of the two panels, might should be posted against the vacancy created due to the resignation of Sri Juned Akhtar at K.V.K., Shahjahanpur. It was alleged that Sri Shiv Kumar who was placed at serial No.2 in the penal prepared for the general category candidates was given appointment but the petitioner who was placed at serial No.2 in the panel prepared for O.B.C. candidates was not given appointment. It was alleged that respondent No.2 Chief Personnel Officer, University was interested in appointing Sri Shiv Kumar who was in the selection panel of general category. It was further alleged that the respondent No.2 Chief Personnel Officer, University was trying to manipulate the things, therefore, the petitioner on 21-01-1997 made representation before the respondent No.1 Vice Chancellor, University. But the University did not pay any heed to the request of the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved by this, the writ petitioner (appellant) had filed the writ petition before the learned Single Judge. 4. The respondents had filed counter affidavit and pleaded that Shiv Kumar was candidate under the O.B.C. category. He was included in the general category on the basis of his performance and suitability and in view of Government order No.1 /1 /94/Karm ink 1/1994Karmik Anubhag-1 dated 25-03-1994. 4. The respondents had filed counter affidavit and pleaded that Shiv Kumar was candidate under the O.B.C. category. He was included in the general category on the basis of his performance and suitability and in view of Government order No.1 /1 /94/Karm ink 1/1994Karmik Anubhag-1 dated 25-03-1994. The matter of the petitioner was considered by the University on the ground that Shiv Kumar was a candidate under the Backward Category and person who had been appointed under the Backward Category having relinquished the post, therefore, the University had no option but to consider the case of Shiv Kumar for appointment as a candidate under the Backward Class Category. It was pleaded that the petitioner fell within the definition of creamy layer of Backward Class Category as his father Dr. Bhim Singh was Joint Director in the ICAR in New Delhi, as such, the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of the reservation under the Backward Class Category. At last it was pleaded that the petition was misconceived and is liable to be dismissed. 2007(2) Sunil Singh Vs. V.C., G.B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology 47 5. After hearing the parties, the learned Single Judge had disposed of the writ petition on 30-07-2004 with the observation that the petitioner may approach to the Board of Management of the University which may consider the case of the petitioner sympathetically as a special case, keeping in view of the peculiar circumstances of the case, and if the Regulations of the University permits, the Board of Management shall grant relaxation in the age of the petitioner. The petitioner also filed the review application before the learned Single Judge but the same was also dismissed on 16-06-2006. 6. Feeling aggrieved by the said orders, the appellant/writ petitioner has preferred the present special appeal. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. During the course of the hearing, we also asked Sri Rajendra Dobhal, Advocate for the respondents/University to produce the records relating to the selection and appointment of Shiv Kumar. Sri Rajendra Dobhal, Advocate for the University has produced the record relating to the same. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner contended that in pursuance of the advertisement issued by the University for the appointment on the post of Trainee Assistant (Animal Husbandry), the appellant/writ petitioner applied for the selection in O.B.C. category. Sri Rajendra Dobhal, Advocate for the University has produced the record relating to the same. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner contended that in pursuance of the advertisement issued by the University for the appointment on the post of Trainee Assistant (Animal Husbandry), the appellant/writ petitioner applied for the selection in O.B.C. category. The Selection Committee recommended the name of Shri A.K. Pandey at serial No.1 and Shiv Kumar at serial No.2 in the general category whereas in respect of O.B.C. category, the Selection Committee prepared a separate panel in which Sri Juned Akhtar was placed at serial No.1 and the appellant/writ petitioner was placed at serial No.2. The University appointed Sri A.K. Pande as Trainee Assistant against the vacant post in the general category and Shiv Kumar was kept in the waiting list. Likewise in O.B.C. category, Juned Akhtar was appointed as Trainee Assistant against the vacant post and the appellant/writ petitioner was kept in the waiting list. Meanwhile, Juned Akhtar appointed in the O.B.C. category tendered his resignation after joining the said post. It was contended by the learned counsel that as the post in O.B.C. category fell vacant, and the appellanVwrit petitioner was in the waiting list of the O.B.C. category candidates, no other person could have been appointed on the post which had fallen vacant after the resignation of Juned Akhtar than the appellanVwrit petitioner who was kept in waiting list in O.B.C. category. It was contended that Shiv Kumar who was kept in the waiting list in the general category could not be appointed in respect of the vacancy reserved for O.B.C. candidates. It was contended that the selection panel in respect of the general category and O.B.C. category were different and the person selected in one panel cannot be appointed in respect of the vacancy of other panel. It was contended that Shiv Kumar was never recommended by the Selection Committee in respect of the panel prepared for the O.B.C. candidates, therefore, he has no right or lien to be considered against the O.B.C. category. It was further contended that the post of Trainee Assistant (Animal Husbandry) fell vacant after the resignation of Juned Akhtar and the same was filled during the pendency of this writ petition by appointing Shiv Kumar by the University. 10. It was further contended that the post of Trainee Assistant (Animal Husbandry) fell vacant after the resignation of Juned Akhtar and the same was filled during the pendency of this writ petition by appointing Shiv Kumar by the University. 10. Learned counsel for the respondents refuted the contention and contended that the appellant/writ petitioner and Shiv Kumar both were applicants under the O.B.C. category at the time of the submitting the application. Shiv Kumar, although an O.B.C. candidate was included under the general category on the basis of his performance and suitability and in view of the Government order No. 1/194/Karmik1/1994-Karmik Anubhag-1 dated 25-03-1994 in respect of reservation. Shiv Kumar was a candidate under the backward category but he was kept in the panel of general category because he qualified on merits under the general category. Juned Akhtar appointed under the backward category tendered his resignation and his post fell vacant, thereafter, the University had no option but to consider the candidature of Shiv Kumar as O.B.C. candidate and gave him appointment in view of the aforementioned G.O. It was further contended that Shiv Kumar filed a writ petition before the Allahabad High Court and in pursuance of the High Court order, his candidature was again considered by the Committee constituted by the competent authority & in pursuance of the said order and recommendation of the Committee, the appointment was made against the vacant post which fell vacant after the resignation of Juned Akhtar. 11. It is admitted to both the parties that in pursuance of the advertisement, the appellant/writ petitioner and Shiv Kumar applied for the selection on the post of Trainee Assistant (Animal Husbandry) to the University. It is also admitted to the parties that the University advertised two posts of Trainee Assistants (Animal Husbandry) out of which one was reserved for the general category and another was reserved for O.B.C. category candidates. It is also admitted to the parties that the Selection Committee prepared a panel in respect of the general category and O.B.C. category. The Selection Committee empanelled A.K. Pandey at serial No.1 and Shiv Kumar at serial No.2 for the general category. In respect of O.B.C. candidates, a separate panel was prepared in which Juned Akhtar was placed at serial No.1 and the appellant/writ petitioner was placed at serial No.2. The Selection Committee empanelled A.K. Pandey at serial No.1 and Shiv Kumar at serial No.2 for the general category. In respect of O.B.C. candidates, a separate panel was prepared in which Juned Akhtar was placed at serial No.1 and the appellant/writ petitioner was placed at serial No.2. It is also not disputed that A.K. Pandey was appointed in the general category and Juned Akhtar was appointed in the O.B.C. category who were at serial No.1 in respective panels. Juned Akhtar appointed under the O.B.C. category tendered his registration on 21-11-1996. It is also not disputed that the appellant/writ petitioner moved a representation to be appointed on the said post which fell vacant after the resignation of Juned Akhtar. Shiv Kumar also filed a Writ Petition No. 40297 of 1996 titled Shiv Kumar Vs. The Vice Chancellor, Govind Ballabh Pant University and another in which the following order was passed: "Heard Shri K.P. Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Kakkar, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties this petition is disposed of finally with the direction to the respondents to examine the case of the petitioner in the light whether the petitioner had applied as a candidate belonging to reserved category and if yes, he became eligible for the post under challenge. The respondents may consider the case of the petitioner within four weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order before them and communicate the result of the petitioner." 12. Perusal of the original record reveals that Shiv Kumar applied as O.B.C. category candidates. He was included in the general category on the basis of his performance and suitability. He was kept in the waiting list in the general category, though he was a candidate of the reserved category. He also preferred a writ petition before the Allahabad High Court in which the above quoted order was passed and the University was under obligation to reconsider his case in the light of the direction of the High Court. Perusal of the original record reveals that pursuant to the order of the High Court after consideration, Shiv Kumar was appointed against the vacant post. Perusal of the original record reveals that pursuant to the order of the High Court after consideration, Shiv Kumar was appointed against the vacant post. It is also pertinent to mention here that the Government order referred above by the University, clearly provides that if any person who had qualified under the general category and he was a backward candidate also, he is also to be considered as a general candidate. In the instant case, Shiv Kumar was in panel of general category and the post fell vacant of the O.B.C. category. Shiv Kumar was originally an O.B.C. category candidate and he had applied in such category. Therefore, he cannot be deprived of the appointment under the O.B.C. category giving preference over the panel O.B.C. candidates, as he was higher in rank than the appellant/writ petitioner. Perusal of the record further reveals that the order was issued in pursuance of the order of the Allahabad High Court after due consideration by the University. The University was justified in appointing Shiv Kumar as an O.B.C. candidate. 13. The writ petition filed in the year 1997 and Shiv Kumar was also appointed as Trainee Assistant (Animal Husbandry) at Shahjahanpur against the vacancy of Juned Akhtar which fell vacant after his resignation. After reorganization of the State of U.P. under the Re-organzation Act, 2000, Shahjahanpur district falls within the State of UP. & the University falls within the State of Uttarakhand. Learned Single Judge had rightly held that the University could not appoint the person in the State of UP now. We do not find any fault in the approach of the learned Single Judge holding that neither the Sardar Ballabhbhai Patel Agriculture University, Meerut nor the Krishi Vigyan Kendra at Shahjahanpur in which the appellant/writ petitioner was seeking appointment against the vacant post are within the jurisdiction of Govind Ballabh Pant University of Agriculture & Technology, Pant Nagar nor the aforesaid Institutions have been made party in the writ petition. 14. It is also pertinent to mention here that it is admitted case of the parties that Shiv Kumar has been appointed by the University against the vacant post of Juned Akhtar as an O.B.C. candidate. The appellant/writ petitioner has neither arrayed Shiv Kumar as a respondent in the writ petition nor in the special appeal. If the prayer of the appellant/writ petitioner is allowed, Shiv Kumar's rights would be affected. The appellant/writ petitioner has neither arrayed Shiv Kumar as a respondent in the writ petition nor in the special appeal. If the prayer of the appellant/writ petitioner is allowed, Shiv Kumar's rights would be affected. Without hearing Shiv Kumar, no adverse order can be passed in the writ petition and special appeal against him. Hence, the writ petition and the special appeal are liable to be dismissed on this score also. 15. In view of the above, the impugned judgment and orders passed by the learned Single Judge do not require any interference. The special appeal devoids of merit and is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed accordingly. 16. No order as to costs.