S.S. Chauhan, J. - (1.) Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel.
(2.) The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 29th August 2001 , contained in Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition, inter alia on the ground that the judgment passed by the apex Court in the Special Appeal No. 5699 of 1994 has not been considered in the correct perspective only on the contention that the vacancies are not available on which the Petitioners can be appointed from the select list.
(3.) Learned Counsel for the Petitioners drew attention of the Court that after remand of the matter from Hon'ble the Supreme Court and after dismissal of the SLP filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh, the opposite parties were required to have considered the case of the Petitioners finding that the District Magistrate has written a letter dated 22.4.1993 to the effect that 15 vacancies are available and they have concealed the correct fact s in the impugned order and have proceeded to reject the claim of the Petitioners arbitrarily and maliciously.;