Research › Browse › Judgment

Supreme Court of India · body

2018 DIGILAW 81 (SC)

ALOK KUMAR SINGH v. STATE OF U. P.

2018-01-16

AMITAVA ROY, KURIAN JOSEPH

body2018
ORDER : T.C. (C) No.296/2017 (Item No.7.238). 1. We find that this petition has nothing to do with the recruitment process as it pertains to stipend/salary. Therefore, this matter is sent back to the High Court with a request to dispose of the writ petition expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months from the date of its listing. 2. The transferred case is, accordingly, disposed of. T.C. (C) No.119/2017 (Item No.7.41) 3. We find that the High Court in the peculiar facts of the case has directed the writ petitioner(s) before it to be sent for medical examination by the Medical Board constituted by the Court in the case of Janardan Singh v. State of U.P. and others, vide order dated 28.08.2015. 4. The transferred case is hence disposed of making the said order dated 01.09.2015 passed by the High Court in Writ A. No.49308/2015 absolute, making it further clear that in case any of the personnel in the Board has retired, it will be open to the State to substitute them appropriately. The needful shall be done within one month. T.C. (C) No.292/2017 (Item No.7.234) 5. On the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that despite police clearance no appointment has yet been offered to the petitioner, we direct the AAG/Standing Counsel for the State to get further instruction. 6. The petitioner is directed to furnish a copy of this petition to the AAG/Standing Counsel for the State of U.P., within two days, along with the order of the High Court. List on 21.02.2018 at 2.00 P.M. T.C. (C) Nos.117/2017, 210/2017, 284/2017, 288/2017, 293/2017 & W.P.(C) NO.22/2018 (Item Nos.7.76, 7.173, 7.227, 7.231 7.235, 10) 7. We direct the AAG/Standing Counsel for the State to get instruction and file a Status Report in these cases. 8. The petitioner is directed to furnish a copy of these petitions to the AAG/Standing Counsel for the State of U.P., within two days, along with the order(s) of the High Court. List on 21.02.2018 at 2.00 P.M. T.C. (C) No.158/2017 (Item No.7.126) 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had already been acquitted in all the criminal cases and in the list he has been shown as selected. However, he has not yet been sent for training. 10. We direct the AAG/Standing Counsel for the State to get instruction in this case. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had already been acquitted in all the criminal cases and in the list he has been shown as selected. However, he has not yet been sent for training. 10. We direct the AAG/Standing Counsel for the State to get instruction in this case. 11. The petitioner is directed to furnish a copy of this petition to the AAG/Standing Counsel for the State of U.P., within two days, along with the order(s) of the High Court. 12. List on 21.02.2018 at 2.00 P.M. T.C. (C) No.92/2017 (Item No.7.75) 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the District Magistrate has already given the clearance that there is no objection for appointment. It is also submitted that the petitioner stands selected but not sent for training. 14. We direct the AAG/Standing Counsel for the State to get instruction in this case. 15. The petitioner is directed to furnish a copy of this petition to the AAG/Standing Counsel for the State of U.P., within two days, along with the orders of the High Court. List on 21.02.2018 at 2.00 P.M. T.C. (C) Nos.76/2017, 94/2017, 95/2017, 130/2017, 170/2017, 290/2017 & 300/2017 (Item Nos.7.48, 7.78, 7.80, 7.98, 7.136, 7.233, 7.241) 16. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in all these cases the High Court had passed an interim order for re-examination by a Medical Board. In one of the connected matters i.e. T.C. (C) No.119/2017 we have already directed the State to comply with the order within a period of one month. 17. Therefore, these cases are also disposed of in the same line, with a direction that in case there is an interim order passed by the High Court for re-examination by the Medical Board they shall also be subjected to medical examination, as ordered by this Court in T.C. (C) No.119/2017. The needful be done within a period of one month. T.C. (C) Nos. 78/2017 & 253/2017 (Item Nos.7.51 & 7.210) 18. The petitioners have a complaint that they have not been subjected to proper medical examination. It is submitted that in all the similarly situated cases, the High Court had directed the petitioners to be put to medical examination by a Medical Board. T.C. (C) Nos. 78/2017 & 253/2017 (Item Nos.7.51 & 7.210) 18. The petitioners have a complaint that they have not been subjected to proper medical examination. It is submitted that in all the similarly situated cases, the High Court had directed the petitioners to be put to medical examination by a Medical Board. In case the petitioners are also similarly situated, we direct the State to subject the petitioners in these cases also to medical examination by a Medical Board, as in the case of the petitioners in T.C. (C) No.119/2017, within a period of one month. 19. The transferred cases are disposed of accordingly. T.C.(C) No.55/2017 (Item No.7.31) 20. Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) submits that his case is covered by the judgment of this Court dated 18.07.2014 passed in C.A. No.6547/2014.We direct the AAG/Standing Counsel for the State to get instruction in this case. 21. The petitioner is directed to furnish a copy of this petition to the AAG/Standing Counsel for the State of U.P., within two days, along with a copy of the order passed by this Court, referred to above. List on 21.02.2018 at 2.00 P.M. REST OF THE MATTERS 22. Learned counsel appearing for the State submitted that the order dated 30.11.2017 could not be fully implemented because of lack of clarification regarding the candidates who used whitener, blade etc. 23. We make it clear that since the candidates who have used whitener, blade etc. have otherwise been permitted, the State need to follow only one list. 24. It is also clarified that in the matter of appointment pursuant to our order dated 30.11.2017 all the three factors, namely, merit, reservation and preference should be taken into consideration. 25. We request the learned counsel to furnish the information in the format now given at paragraph 13 of the affidavit, handed over to the learned counsel for the parties in Court today, which will be filed during the course of the day. The information, as above, be furnished to the learned Additional Advocate General for the State of U.P. before 5.00 P.M. on 27.01.2018. We further make it clear that column 'f' in the format is regarding grievances which shall contain any other information that is not already covered by the other columns. 26. The information, as above, be furnished to the learned Additional Advocate General for the State of U.P. before 5.00 P.M. on 27.01.2018. We further make it clear that column 'f' in the format is regarding grievances which shall contain any other information that is not already covered by the other columns. 26. As far as the candidates who have already been sent for training, either as Sub Inspector or as Platoon Commander, their claims for change of preference need not be considered until any orders are issued by the Court. Needless to say that in the case of those candidates who are yet to be sent for training, the factor of preference will also be taken into consideration. 27. We make it clear that all the orders passed by this Court are in the very peculiar facts and circumstances of these cases and shall not be taken as a precedent. 28. For further hearing list on 21.02.2018 at 2.00 P.M.