- (1.) The Petitioners completed their training as Aurvedia Pharmacist from Aurvedic Pharmacist Training Centre, Jaunpur which is a registered and recognized Institution by the Indian Medicines Board, U.P. Lucknow. After qualifying as Aurvedic Pharmacist, the Petitioners also completed their practical training from the said Institution. Both the Petitioners were registered as Aurvedic Pharmacist by the Indian Medicines Board, U.P. An advertisement was published inviting applications for the appointment of Aurvedic Pharmacist 85 posts and two posts for Unani Pharmacist.
(2.) The Petitioners are of Backward Class. Both have applied for selection and appointment as Aurvedic Pharmacists. The Petitioners since belong to Backward class are also entitled for reserved quota for backward class candidates also The Petitioners were called for appearing before the interview Board and the opposite party 1 the Director of Aurvedic and Unani Services U.P. had taken the interview of the Petitioners. After appearing in the interview, the Petitioners waited for their appointment letters for a petty long time and could not get any Information. The Respondent No. 1 neither published the list of selected candidates nor any information about the result of the interview was sent by the Respondent No. 1.
(3.) The Petitioners learnt that Respondent No. 1 although had advertised for 87 vacancies, had already issued about 200 appointment letters without preparing list of successful candidates who had appeared in the interview. The allegation in the writ petition that the opposite party No. 1 was making appointment arbitrarily, corruptly and confidentially. The Petitioners stated names of Sri Kailash Singh, Sri Sanjai Shukla, Sri Dinesh Chand Gupta and Sri Jai Prakash Singh belonging to Districts Varanasi and Jaunpur, who were representatives of unemployed Aurvedic Pharmacists Association had started agitation before the opposite party No. 1 and had also gheroed him and raised slogans against him. The opposite party No. 1 in these circumstances to cover up his own latches, issued letters of appointments to those four persons irrespective of the fact that their names were also not published for appointment nor there was any other cogent reasons for taking them in service. The appointment letters issued to them since was under duress and coercion, and the letters of appointments were issued to them The Petitioners stated that aforementioned appointments were given by the opposite party No. 1 without preparing any merit list of the candidates, who had applied for the post. The appointments were given as a result of some extraneous considerations or under pressure and coercion or threat extended by the aforesaid four persons.;