Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1979 (ALL)

Radhey Shyam Pandey v. State of U. P.

2014-07-08

D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, DILIP GUPTA

body2014
JUDGMENT Hon'ble Dilip Gupta, J. In these proceedings, the petitioner has sought to challenge an order dated 7 February 2014 notifying the appointments made by the State for the posts of an Ombudsman under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGA) in respect of 20 districts. The petitioner also seeks a mandamus directing the State to complete the process leading to his appointment as an Ombudsman for Sant Kabir Nagar. 2. By a Government Order dated 18 November 2009, a Selection Committee was constituted for the selection of Ombudsmen under the MNREGA Scheme in pursuance of the guidelines which were issued by the Central Government on 7 September 2009. The Government Order specifies the constitution of the Selection Committee for the purposes of the scheme. The Selection Committee is to consist of the following: - "(I) Commissioner (Agricultural Production), Government of U.P.-President/Chairman. (II) Representative of Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India-Member (III) Representative of Voluntary Institution, nominated by Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India-Member (IV) Principal Secretary, Department of Village Development, Government of U.P.-Member Secretary." 3. The Selection Committee initiated proceedings for selection of Ombudsmen for each district of the State in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Union Government on 7 September 2009 and thereafter on 24 May 2013. Paragraph 2.2.3 and paragraph 2.2.4 of the guidelines of the Union Government as amended provide as follows: - "2.2.3- Selection of suitable persons for inclusion in the panel shall be based on consideration of eminent standing and impeccable integrity with at least twenty years of experience in public administration, social work or management as per documents furnished alongwith the application. 2.2.4- No written tests/examination or interview shall be conducted and an internal marking system should be evolved by the Selection Committee to rank persons in order of preference." 4. The Selection Committee, during the course of the process which was undertaken found that eligible candidates were available only in 20 out of 71 districts of the State. On the basis of the recommendation, the State Government issued an office order dated 7 February 2014 for appointment of Ombudsmen in 20 districts. The Selection Committee, during the course of the process which was undertaken found that eligible candidates were available only in 20 out of 71 districts of the State. On the basis of the recommendation, the State Government issued an office order dated 7 February 2014 for appointment of Ombudsmen in 20 districts. In the remaining districts, since candidates were not found to be eligible or, as the case may be, suitable, additional charge has been granted to the selected candidates of other districts in order to obviate difficulties in the disposal of complaints under the MNREGA Scheme. 5. The petition relates to the appointment of an Ombudsman for Sant Kabir Nagar. The case of the petitioner is that he was in fact selected by the Selection Committee. This is seriously contested on behalf of the State. On a perusal of the annexures to the petition, it emerges that Annexure-8 upon which the petitioner relies is a letter dated 11 February 2013 of the Commissioner, Rural Development to the District Collector of Sant Kabir Nagar requiring him to carry out a character verification of certain candidates. Hence, we find merit in the contention of the State that the list upon which the petitioner relies is only a verification list and not a list of finally selected candidates. As a matter of fact, the Selection Committee has not found any candidate suitable for being recommended for appointment in the district of Sant Kabir Nagar and consequently additional charge has been given to the selected candidate from Siddharth Nagar who appears at Serial No.14 of the notification dated 7 February 2014, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-3A to the counter affidavit. 6. The petitioner at the highest had only a right to be considered for appointment. The petitioner has been considered and not found to be suitable. Hence, he cannot seek a mandamus seeking his appointment. There is no merit in the challenge to the appointment which has been made by the notification dated 7 February 2014 insofar as the claim of the petitioner is concerned which is confined to Sant Kabir Nagar. As a matter of fact, no candidate has been recommended for Sant Kabir Nagar at all and the State would be required to follow a fresh process of selection for the districts where no candidate was recommended by the Selection Committee. As a matter of fact, no candidate has been recommended for Sant Kabir Nagar at all and the State would be required to follow a fresh process of selection for the districts where no candidate was recommended by the Selection Committee. In the meantime, all that has been done is to give additional charge so that the work of disposing of complaints in respect of the implementation of the Scheme is not unattended. The petition lacks substance. 7. In the previous order of this Court dated 27 May 2014, an order of costs was issued on the ground that despite two previous adjournments on 30 April 2014 and 14 May 2014, no instructions had been made available to the learned Standing Counsel. Learned Standing Counsel has in fact placed on the record the instructions which were received on 26 May 2014 from the Commission. Learned Standing Counsel states that on 27 May 2014 after the order was passed, a mention was made before the Court at 2.00 PM but since the learned counsel for the petitioner was not available in the Court, the position could not be clarified. Now that the matter has been clarified before the Court and the counter has been filed, we consider it appropriate in the interest of justice to recall the order of costs which was passed on 27 May 2014. For these reasons, we find no merit in this petition. It is, accordingly, dismissed.