A.K.Yog, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Anil Bhushan, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Ms. Archana Srivastava, appearing on behalf of ail the Respondents.
(2.) Parties have exchanged Counter and Rejoinder affidavits and hence this petition is being finally decided at the 'admission stage' as contemplated under Rules of Court.
(3.) Name of the petitioner was, admittedly, included in select list dated 28.8.1997 for making appointment on the post of Patra Vahak (Annexure-1 to the Writ Petition). List of Sweeper-cum-Chowkidar was separately prepared (Annexure-2 to the Writ Petition). The averments made in the petition as well as in the Counter Affidavit go to show that some persons on the basis of select list for the post of Sweeper-cum-Chowkidar were given appointments. Even though the respondents vide para 4 of their Counter Affidavit taken stand that aforementioned lists (Annexures-1 and 2 to the Writ Petition) were prepared against Rules. Annexure 4 to the petition is the letter dated August 20, 1998 written by Chief Development Officer, Jaunpur to the District Development Officer, Jaunpur, shows that certain parely took place amongst concerned Officer/authorities and that appointment were with held on the ground of oral instruction being given by the then Incharge Minister Sri Ram Shankar. Petitioner had filed a representation, apart from his earlier efforts to seek appointment dated 27.8.1998 addressed to the District Development Officer, Jaunpur with request to place the relevant file in the matter before District Magistrate i.e. one day before expiry of one year of the waiting list. The petitioner, thereafter, filed Writ Petition No. 3143 of 1998 (Prakash Kumar Kushzuaha and three others v. Collector and others) , which was disposed of by learned Single Judge vide judgment and order dated 7.10.1998 with direction to decide the same within two months of receipt of representation from the concerned aggrieved person and to decide the same exercising own discretion without being influenced by other persons (Annexure-7 to the Writ Petition). Petitioner filed representation and in the light of the High Court order the District Development Officer also issued appointment letter dated 17th October, 1998 (Annexure-9 to the Writ Petition). It will be noted that petitioner had submitted representation dated 16.10.1998 (in the light of the aforementioned order dated 7.10.1998 of High Court) and appointment letter (Annexure-7 to the Writ Petition) issued next date i.e. 17th October, 1998. This clearly shows that authority did not decide representation on merit and automatically issued letter.;