B.L.Yadav, J. - (1.) By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the prayer is that by issuing a writ of mandamus the respondent may be directed to appoint the petitioner on the post of Collection Peon in the Sales Tax Department, Varanasi, for which selection was held and the petitioner's name was found at serial No. 21 in the select list (Annexure-1 to the petition). The allegation of the petitioner is that even persons below the petitioner in the select list have been appointed.
(2.) Earlier the petition was listed before a Division Bench of this Court and it was ordered that the petition shall be listed for admission on 26.10.88, by which date counter-affidavit was to be filed. Since then more than two years have lapsed and no counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State. It is a very sorry state of affairs. This shows that negligence on the part of the State not to take matters seriously in respect of litigation in as much as even after two years having expired when the first time was granted, but no couter-affidavit has been filed, and now there is no justification to grant any further time to learned standing counsel for filing counter affidavit.
(3.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. Under the circumstances it appears just that as the petitioner's name finds place at serial No. 21 in the select list and the persons below his name have been appointed and inspite of repeated reminders and applications dated 2.2.88 (Annexure-5) and the application (Annexure-4), on which on 23.12.1987 and order was also passed by the Upper Ziladhikari that the appointment may be made and he may be informed but the petitioner was not appointed. Under the circumstances a case for issuance of a writ of mandamus is made out.;