JUDGMENT Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following reliefs : “(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 26.5.1998 passed by respondent No. 1 as contained in Annexure 5 to the writ petition. (ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding respondents to appoint the petitioner on the post of Village Development Officer, in accordance with the provisions contained under the Uttar Pradesh Gram Sewak Sewa Niyamawali, 1980. (iii) issue any other and further writ, order or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. (iv) award the costs to the petitioner.” 3. The case of the petitioner as set out in the writ petition is that a number of posts of Village Development Officer (hereinafter referred to as the “VDO”) were advertised by the respondents liable to be filled in accordance with U.P. Rural Development (Gram Sewaks) Service Rules, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the “Rules, 1980”). The said vacancies were notified District wise in the year 1993. For District Farrukhabad, twelve vacancies were advertised which included reserve vacancies, i.e., two for scheduled castes, two for other backward class and one each for dependent of freedom fighters and ex-serviceman leaving six vacancies available for general candidates. It is alleged that a written test followed by interview was held at the district level and in the merit list prepared the petitioner stood at serial No. 3 in the general candidates list. It is said that the petitioner requested the authorities to make him available the copy of the select list but the respondents did not make him available the said select list. Since the petitioner despite of his alleged selection was not sent for training, he filed Writ Petition No. 22058 of 1995 wherein an interim order was passed on 16.8.1995 directing the respondents to sent him for training of VDO but not to issue appointment letter. The interim order is reproduced as under : “In the meanwhile considering the fact that the petitioner has been selected by the District Selection Committee and further the ratio of the decision of this Court in Civil Misc. The interim order is reproduced as under : “In the meanwhile considering the fact that the petitioner has been selected by the District Selection Committee and further the ratio of the decision of this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1932/1994 as well as the facts and circumstances brought on record, it is directed that his name be sent for the purpose of training for appointment on the post of Village Development Officer but the appointment letter, shall however be not issued to him until further order.” 4. The writ petition was finally disposed of on 5.1.1998 with the following directions in the operative part : “The present case is clearly comes within the purview of the said decision. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. If the petitioner has undergone the requisite training in compliance of the interim order passed by this Court and has successfully completed the same, the respondents shall consider his case for appointment on the post of Village Development Officer in accordance with the provisions of Rule 16 of the Rules if there exists any vacancy for giving appointment, within 3 months from the date of production of the certified copy of this judgment. In the circumstances, no order as to costs is made.” 5. Pursuant to the aforesaid judgment of this Court the respondent No. 1 passed an order on 26.5.1998 holding that in the combined merit list of District Farrukhabad the petitioner’s name find place at serial No. 67. The total number of candidates appeared in selection in District Farrukhabad were 145. Excluding the candidates belong to reserve category in first 67 persons, the name of petitioner in the merit list of the District Farrukhabad comes at serial No. 43 and, therefore, by no imagination the petitioner could be said to have been selected against the number of vacancies notified for District Farrukhabad. Though the respondent No. 1 in the aforesaid order has mentioned the number of vacancies for District Farrukhabad being 10 (5 for reserve category candidates and 5 for general candidates) but the advertisement shows the total number of vacancies for District Farrukhabad as 12, i.e., six for reserve category candidates and six for general candidates. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of respondent No. 1 the present writ petition has been filed. 6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of respondent No. 1 the present writ petition has been filed. 6. A supplementary affidavit has also been filed by the petitioner stating that only five general category candidates including the petitioner were sent for training which the petitioner completed successfully and, therefore, it is incorrect to suggest that the petitioner is not within the required merit list qua the number of vacancies available for general candidates in District Farrukhabad. It is further stated therein that since only five candidates were sent for training, the final merit list must be deemed to have been prepared in respect to only those candidates who were sent for training and not otherwise. 7. On behalf of respondents a counter-affidavit has been filed sworn by Sri Phool Singh Maurya, Zila Vikas Adhikari, Farrukhabad. It is stated therein that in the year 1993 the Commissioner, Rural Development U.P. determined 618 vacancies of VDO spread in various districts in accordance with Rule 14 of Rules, 1980. He also directed the concerned District Magistrate to proceed with the recruitment against the vacancies determined for their districts in accordance with Rules. The District Selection Committee prepared merit list of candidates of their district and submitted it to the Commissioner who prepared a combined State Level Merit List in accordance with Rule 15(4) of Rules 1980. The last candidates selected as per the said merit list had secured the minimum marks as detailed herein : “1. General Category 230.5 2. Scheduled Caste 202.0 3. Scheduled Tribes 153.5 4. Backward Class 220.5 5. Dependent of Freedom Fighters 165.0 6. Ex-Armymen 163.0 7. Physically Handicapped 178.25" 8. The candidates who were thus found selected were sent for training of VDO. In respect to the District Farrukhabad the merit list prepared by the District Selection Committee against the notified vacancies of 10 for the said district contains names of 145 candidates who had appeared in the said selection and the name of petitioner therein was at serial No. 67 having secured 196 marks in written test, physical and interview. Copy of the said select list has been filed as Annexure CA-3 to the counter-affidavit. Copy of the said select list has been filed as Annexure CA-3 to the counter-affidavit. It is said that the combined State Level Merit List prepared by the Commissioner was challenged in a bunch of writ petitions including Writ Petition No. 22058 of 1995 filed by the present petitioner wherein he said that he stood at serial No. 3 in the merit list of general candidates prepared by the District Selection Committee of District Farrukhabad and relying thereon the ex parte interim order was passed by the Court on 16.8.1995 directing the respondents to sent him for training of VDO and pursuant thereto, he was sent for training. The validity of the combined merit list prepared at the State level came to be settled by a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Special Appeal No. 266 of 1996 decided on 24.5.1996, a copy whereof has been placed on record as Annexure CA-6 to the counter-affidavit. This Court after considering the relevant provisions of Rules 1980 and in particular Rules 15 and 16 held that such combined list for the purpose of training could not have been prepared by the Commissioner. The persons who have to be sent for training must be on the basis of merit list of the District Selection Committee and not combined State Level List. It is in these circumstances, in view of the aforesaid Division Bench judgment of this Court the petitioner’s case was considered and it was found that he was not selected by the District Level Committee and, therefore, there is no question of his appointment. 9. The petitioner has filed rejoinder-affidavit reiterating the facts in the writ petition. 10. It is submitted that in view of the final judgment passed by this Court in his Writ Petition No. 22058 of 1995 the respondents have no authority to hold that he was not a selected candidate. He is entitled to be treated as a selected candidate who has completed his training and, therefore, should be given appointment. 10. It is submitted that in view of the final judgment passed by this Court in his Writ Petition No. 22058 of 1995 the respondents have no authority to hold that he was not a selected candidate. He is entitled to be treated as a selected candidate who has completed his training and, therefore, should be given appointment. Learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the petitioner’s averment that in the merit he is at serial No. 3 in the select list of District Level Committee was accepted by this Court while passing the order dated 16.1.1995 and the said fact has not been found to be incorrect even at the time when the final order was passed deciding his earlier writ petition on 5.1.1998 whereby this Court gave a categorical direction to the respondents that in case the petitioner has undergone requisite training and has successfully completed the same, the respondents shall consider him for appointment on the post of VDO in accordance with Rule 16 of Rules, 1980 if there exists any vacancy for giving appointment. He, therefore, submits that in view of the aforesaid judgment it was not open to the respondents to reconsider the merit position of petitioner in the District Level Merit List but he was entitled to be treated at serial No. 3 in the said merit list and accordingly ought to have been issued appointment letter within the number of vacancies notified for general category in the selection in question. 11. Learned Standing Counsel on the contrary submitted that since the petitioner was not selected by the District Selection Committee, therefore, there is no question of giving him appointment. He further submits that this Court has nowhere adjudicated the question as to whether the petitioner wa selected by the District Level Committee or not. On the contrary the only question up for consideration in the earlier writ petition was whether the State Level Merit List prepared by the Commissioner was valid or not and whether he could ignore the merit list of District Level Committee for the purpose of sending them for training under Rule 15(4) of Rules, 1980. 12. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, in my view, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief. 13. 12. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, in my view, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief. 13. Before proceeding further I would first consider an incidental question to which learned counsel for the petitioner drew my attention. This Court passed an order on 5.1.2001 after perusing the writ petition and supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner, observing as under : “Let supplementary affidavit filed today be kept on record. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel representing respondents. I have also perused the impugned order dated 26.5.1998. It would appear from the order impugned herein that ten candidates were selected in the General Category. Admittedly the petitioner was not amongst the ten selected candidates in the General Category. Counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that ten candidates selected in the General Category did not turn up and, therefore, the candidates lowered in the order of merit were called for training. It appears that the petitioner’s name was at serial No. 67 and he was sent for training pursuant to the High Court’s order. The question is whether he was otherwise entitled to be sent on training on the basis of merit. This fact can be ascertained only on perusal of the select list consisting of candidates placed in the waiting list. List this case on 31.1.2001. Learned Standing Counsel shall produce the entire select list on that date.” (emphasis added) 14. The case was thereafter adjourned from time to time to enable the learned Standing Counsel to comply with the said order. The said select list appears to have been produced before the Court on 21.10.2003 when it was directed to be kept in a sealed cover with the Registrar General. The District Development Officer, Farrukhabad was directed to be personally present in the Court alongwith other records pertaining to selection. On 3.12.2003 it appears that the Hon’ble Court intended to have the State Level Merit List prepared by the Commissioner to which the District Development Officer informed that it would be available in the office of the Commissioner, Rural Development. The District Development Officer, Farrukhabad was directed to be personally present in the Court alongwith other records pertaining to selection. On 3.12.2003 it appears that the Hon’ble Court intended to have the State Level Merit List prepared by the Commissioner to which the District Development Officer informed that it would be available in the office of the Commissioner, Rural Development. In these circumstances on 3.12.2003 this Court passed the following order : “In compliance to the order of this Court dated 21.10.2003 District Development Officer, Farrukhabad Sri Ashok Mishra is physically present in the Court and through Sri Sandeep Mukherjee, learned Standing Counsel has submitted that the list pertains to the State Select List, which is the relevant document, is only available in the office of the Commissioner, Rural Development, therefore, the Commissioner, Rural Development is directed to either hand over the said document to the District Development Officer, Farrukhabad, so that, he may be able to produce the same before the Court himself or through some official, or, the Commissioner, Rural Development may depute some responsible officer to ensure that such documents should be placed for perusal before this Court on the next date of hearing. List this case on 2nd February, 2004. Physical presence of Sri Ashok Mishra, District Development Officer, Farrukhabad is dispensed with. Copy of this order shall be given free of cost to Sri Sandeep Mukherjee, Standing Counsel, who will convey the respondents accordingly in addition to the communication sent by the present District Development Officer present in the Court by letter to the Commissioner, Rural Development.” (emphasis added) 15. Thereafter the case was adjourned again from time to time but it is said that the said order dated 3.12.2003 has not been complied with by the respondents. Learned Counsel for the petitioner in these circumstances requested this Court either to direct the respondents to comply with the order or to draw adverse inference. 16. Learned Standing Counsel expressed his inability to produce the said list as directed by this Court on 3.12.2003. In these circumstances I proceed with the matter drawing adverse inference against the respondents due to non-production of the State Level List prepared by the Commissioner, Rural Development which was required to be produced before this Court vide order dated 3.12.2003. 17. Learned Standing Counsel expressed his inability to produce the said list as directed by this Court on 3.12.2003. In these circumstances I proceed with the matter drawing adverse inference against the respondents due to non-production of the State Level List prepared by the Commissioner, Rural Development which was required to be produced before this Court vide order dated 3.12.2003. 17. The matter, in my view, is quite simple and it appears that while hearing the matter on 3.12.2003 the Hon’ble Court was not apprised of the facts that the State Level Merit List prepared by the Commissioner has been held illegal and invalid by a Division Bench of this Court, and, having been quashed therein vide judgment dated 24.5.1996, the same is non est in the eyes of law and has no legal value. This factum is already noticed in the judgment dated 5.1.1998 of the petitioner’s earlier writ petition where this Court has noticed that he State Level List having been declared illegal by this Court the same losses any legal consequence and it is in these circumstances that the petitioner’s earlier writ petition was allowed so as to give effect to the District Selection Committee merit list for the purpose of training and appointment as is evident from the following : “Similar controversy arose in this case of Adil Rashid Khan (supra) where the question which arose for determination was whether on the fact and circumstances of the case and in view of the provisions of U.P. Rural Development (Gram Sewak) Service Rules, 1980, the Commissioner (Agriculture Production and Rural Development) Uttar Pradesh, is competent/has power to draw up a list of candidates for undergoing training ignoring the list of selected candidates prepared by the District Selection Committee and the answer to this question was to the affect that the action of the Commissioner in preparing the list of candidates for training by-passing/ignoring the list received by him from different Selection Committee was contrary to the rules and hence incompetent and invalid. It was also held that the denial of opportunity of training to the petitioner’s of that case on the basis of such illegal list prepared by the Commissioner was unsustainable. It was also held that the denial of opportunity of training to the petitioner’s of that case on the basis of such illegal list prepared by the Commissioner was unsustainable. In the circumstances this Court in the aforesaid decision directed the respondent to send the appellants names for training in the next batch of trainees and consider their case for appointment in accordance with the provisions of Rule 16 of the Rules.” 18. Therefore, even if this Court drew an adverse inference against the respondents that would not make any difference so far as the adjudication of the dispute in the present case is concerned. 19. Now the question is whether the petitioner was selected in the District Selection Committee merit list and was placed at serial No. 3 of the general candidates merit list or was at serial No. 67. In this regard it would be important to notice that Annexure CA-3 is the merit list of District Level Committee. In respect to the said select list, the averments are contained in paras 9 and 10 of the counter-affidavit which states as under : “9. That the District Selection Committee of Farrukhabad forwarded the following list of selected candidates in order of merit in prescribed proforma in Appendix C of the Service Rules of 1980. A photo stat copy of the list is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure CA-3 to this counter-affidavit. The District Selection Committee of Farrukhabad has forwarded another list of all the candidates including the successful candidates who have appeared before the Selection Committee of District Farrukhabad standing marks obtained by these candidates. A true photo stat copy of the list is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure CA-4. 10. That the petitioner belongs to the general category and has secured only 196 marks whereas the last selected candidate belonging to general category of the District Farrukhabad has secured 233 marks. In the combined State Level Merit List the last selected candidate belonging to the general category has secured 230.5 marks. Thus it is clear that the petitioner has neither been selected by the District Selection Committee of Farrukhabad nor he secured the minimum marks required to be included in the combined State Level Merit List. Thus he has no right to appoint on the post of Gram Vikas Adhikari. Thus it is clear that the petitioner has neither been selected by the District Selection Committee of Farrukhabad nor he secured the minimum marks required to be included in the combined State Level Merit List. Thus he has no right to appoint on the post of Gram Vikas Adhikari. It is pertinent to mention here that in the district Farrukhabad more than 56 unsucessful candidates have secured more marks than the petitioner and in the whole state the strength of such unsuccessful candidates will be in a huge number and any attempt to provide appointment to the petitioner will create not only to this selection but in all other selections too.” 20. In the rejoinder-affidavit the said select list has not been challenged by the petitioner and it is not his case that the said selection list i.e. C.A. 3 is a forged, fictitious or bogus document. On the contrary, in paras 7 and 8 to the rejoinder-affidavit, in a clandestine and circuitous way, he has tried to wriggle out of the said select list by referring to the orders already passed in his earlier writ petitions. Paras 7 and 8 of the rejoinder-affidavit are reproduced as under : “7. That the contents of para 9 of the counter-affidavit are not admitted as stated, the same however shall be suitably met at an appropriate time. It is further stated that it is for the very first time that the list has been submitted by respondents. It is further made clear that 1st writ petition being civil misc. That the contents of para 9 of the counter-affidavit are not admitted as stated, the same however shall be suitably met at an appropriate time. It is further stated that it is for the very first time that the list has been submitted by respondents. It is further made clear that 1st writ petition being civil misc. writ petition No. 22058 of 1995, Sanjai Kumar Singh Vaish v. Commissioner Village Development and others was filed before this Hon’ble Court, wherein in the stay application, following prayer was made : ‘It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to undergo the training of Village Development Officer which is scheduled to be commenced from August 31, 1995.’ and the prayer of the writ petition aforesaid was : (i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to send the petitioner on training for the post of Village Development Officer which is going to be held from August 31, 1995; (ii) issue any other and further writ, order or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper; (iii) award the costs to the petitioner; However, the petitioner was not sent for training in compliance of the orders of this Hon’ble Court, a true copy whereof is already contained in Annexure 4 to the writ petition, in the light of the orders passed in case of Sri Abdul Rashid Khan. However, later on in compliance of the order of this Hon’ble Court dated 16-8-1995, a true copy whereof is already contained in Annexure 2 to the writ petition, the petitioner was sent for training for the post of Village Development Officer as would be evident from the perusal of Annexure CA-5 to the counter-affidavit, which the petitioner successfully completed. At this juncture it is relevant to point out here that only those who completed the training in compliance of the orders of this Hon’ble Court, were duly selected candidates and only none persons completed training against 10 posts of Village Development Officer advertised and rest candidates being not interested, were not sent for training. It is further relevant to submit here that the respondents, in earlier writ petition has nowhere said that the petitioner was not selected for training. 8. It is further relevant to submit here that the respondents, in earlier writ petition has nowhere said that the petitioner was not selected for training. 8. That the contents of paras 10 and 10(A) of the counter-affidavit are not admitted as stated. However, the same being argumentative in nature, shall be suitably met at an appropriate time. However, the fact remain that since the petitioner was duly selected, he was sent for training which he successfully completed, inasmuch as, in the order of this Hon’ble Court also, it was specifically mentioned that : ‘In case name of the petitioner has been selected by the District Selection Committee his name shall be sent for the purpose of training. The appointment order shall, however, be not issued to the petitioner, till further order.’” 21. During the course of arguments also I enquired from the learned counsel for the petitioner as to whether he has ever challenged the select list, copy whereof is filed as Annexure CA-3 to the counter-affidavit being a fictitious and bogus list at any point of time before any authority including this Court. He, instead of any clear reply, however, submitted that it is not open to the respondents to go and enquire his merit position in the District Selection Committee’s merit list in view of the fact that in the earlier writ petition this Court has noticed the petitioner’s averment that he is at serial No. 3 at the merit list and since the order has been passed accordingly, therefore, the said position cannot be diluted or disturbed by referring to the select list prepared by the District Selection Committee of District Farrukhabad even if as a matter of fact his name appear in the said select list at serial No. 67. The submission is thoroughly misconceived and smells of lack of bona fide and attempt of misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner. 22. It is not the case of the petitioner that the merit list and merit position of petitioner in the District Selection Committee’s merit list of District Farrukhabad was in dispute in the earlier writ petition. The sole question which engaged attention of this Court in the earlier writ petition was regarding the validity of the combined State Level Merit List prepared by the Commissioner ignoring the merit list of the District Selection Committee. The sole question which engaged attention of this Court in the earlier writ petition was regarding the validity of the combined State Level Merit List prepared by the Commissioner ignoring the merit list of the District Selection Committee. This Court held that the State Level Merit List is illegal. That being so, the incumbents who find place in the District Level Merit List within the number of vacancies notified for the said district had a claim and a legal right for training and after successful completion thereof, for appointment. If a candidate does not find mention his name at the appropriate place in the merit list of the concerned district, he has no legal or otherwise right either for training or appointment. So far as the training of petitioner is concerned, it was pursuant to an ex parte interim order passed in his case. So far as the final order is concerned, it was consequential to the quashing of the State Level Merit List, meaning thereby the respondents were bound to proceed further as per the merit list of the District Selection Committee, Farrukhabad and it is only if the petitioner’s name figured within the required number of vacancies in the District Level List that he could be appointed and not otherwise. 23. I have also gone through the original merit list of District Farrukhabad wherein the name of petitioner is shown at serial No. 67. There is no difference between the original select list of District Farrukhabad which contain name of petitioner at serial No. 67 and its copy placed on record as Annexure CA-3 to the counter-affidavit. Since indisputably the petitioner’s name appear at serial No. 67 in the merit list and excluding the reserve category candidates who figured above him in the said merit list of District Farrukhabad even then his name comes at serial No. 43, though the number of vacancies for District Farrukhabad said to be 10 as per the impugned order and counter-affidavit and 12 as per Annexure 1 to the writ petition, but in either of the case, the petitioner by no stretch of imagination can be said to be entitled for appointment being much below in merit of the selected candidates as per the select list prepared by the District Selection Committee of District Farrukhabad. 24. The writ petition, therefore, is thoroughly misconceived. 24. The writ petition, therefore, is thoroughly misconceived. Moreover, the conduct of the petitioner has to be condemned in misleading this Court i.e. instead of giving his correct position with respect to District Level Merit List, making an attempt to obtain favourable order by giving wrong facts. This shows that the petitioner has tried to take advantage of his misleading act and has not approached this Court with clean hands. If such a person would have been given appointment due to such misleading stand it would have resulted in travesty of justice. I think that it is a fit case where the writ petition must be dismissed with exemplary costs so that in future such mischievous persons may deter in showing similar conduct and by filing futile writs. 25. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with costs quantified to Rs. 25,000 which shall be paid by the petitioner to the Registrar General within three months from today, failing which it would be open to the Registrar General to initiate proceedings to realize the said amount as arrears of land revenue from the petitioner. The costs so deposited/recovered shall be forwarded to the Allahabad High Court Legal Services Committee and Allahabad High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre in equal share. ———