- (1.) The Petitioners, who had submitted applications for being considered for appointment on the post of Livestock Extension Officer pursuant to the advertisement dated 29th December, 2004 issued by the Joint Director (Administration), Animal Husbandry, U.P. Lucknow, have filed this petition for quashing the order dated 5th January, 2009 issued by the Director, Department of Animal Husbandry in so far as it excludes the Petitioners from participation in the written examination to be held at the end of two years training. The Petitioners have also sought the quashing of the report dated 10th October, 2008 submitted" by the Additional Director (Godhan Vikas), Animal Husbandry Department in so far as it relates to the Petitioners. A further direction has been sought that the Respondents should permit the Petitioners to appear at the written examination to be held at the end of two years training.
(2.) The advertisement provided that the application forms for the 489 posts of Livestock Extension Officer could be submitted by 17th January, 2005 and after selection but before appointment on the said post, two years' training would be imparted. A perusal of the advertisement also shows that the posts of Livestock Extension Officer were allocated Region-wise; that the Deputy Director, Animal Husbandry of the concerned Region was the Appointing Authority; that the post was a Group 'C post falling outside the purview of the U.P. Public Service Commission and that the number of vacancies could increase or decrease.
(3.) The process of selection, including the holding of the written examination under the provisions of the U.P. Animal Husbandry Department of Livestock Extension and Poultry Development Service Rules, 2002 notified on 16th July, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Animal Husbandry Rules') was assailed by certain applicants in various writ petitions on the ground that the selection could have been done only in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the provisions of "Uttar Pradesh Procedure for Direct Recruitment for Group 'C Post (Outside the Purview of the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission), Rules, 2002" (hereinafter referred to as the 'Public Service Commission 2002 Rules') as subsequently amended by "The Uttar Pradesh Procedure for Direct Recruitment for Group "C' Posts (Outside the Purview of the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission) (First Amendment) Rules, 2003. The writ petitions were allowed and the written examination held on 11th September, 2005 was cancelled for the reason that the selection could have been made only in accordance with the provisions of Public Service Commission 2002 Rules. The relevant portion of the judgment rendered by the Court on 21st March, 2006 in Satish Kumar Yadav and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Anr., 2006 3 ESC 1792 is as follows: From the facts which have been noticed herein above, it is not in dispute that the advertisement for making appointment on the post of Livestock Extension Officer was published on 29th December, 2004. On the date the advertisement was published, the only Rules inforce for regulating the appointments on Group 'C' posts in the State of U.P. were the U.P. Procedure for Direct Recruitment for Group 'C Posts (Out Side the Purview of U.P. Public Service Commission) Rules, 2002. It is settled law that the process of selection commences with the issuance of advertisement inviting applications for appointment. The date so notified is the crucial date for determining the procedure and the rules, which are to be applied for the said selections. Any new set of Rules or any subsequent amendments to the existing Rules will have prospective application only and cannot be applied for the purposes of making selections in pursuance of the advertisement which was published earlier.... ... In view of the aforesaid settled legal position, U.P Animal Husbandry Department Livestock Extension and Poultry Development Service Rules, 2002, which have been enforced after publication in official gazette only on 16th July, 2005, will have no application so far as the process of selections qua the advertisement dated 29th December, 2004 is concerned. Therefore the entire written examination conducted by the Respondents in alleged compliance of Rule 15 of U.P. Animal Husbandry Department Livestock Extension and Poultry Development Service Rules, 2002 (notified on 16th July, 2005) is patently illegal and unsustainable in the eyes of law. The Respondents were under legal obligation to complete the process of selections initiated under the advertisement dated 29th December, 2004 in accordance with the Rules applicable i.e. U.P. Procedure for Direct Recruitment for Group 'C Posts (Out Side the Purview of U.P Public Service Commission) Rules, 2002 and in strict adherence thereto. .... In view of the aforesaid, this Court has no hesitation to record that the written examination which have taken place on 11.9.2005 pursuant to the advertisement dated 29th December, 2004 cannot be legally sustained and the same is accordingly quashed. Respondents are directed to complete the process of selection with reference to the advertisement dated 29th December, 2004 in accordance with law as applicable on the date the advertisement was published, at the earliest possible. Writ petitions are allowed subject to the observations made herein above. (emphasis supplied);