- (1.) Heard Sri S.K. Anwar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Anoop Mishra holding brief of Sri Rakesh Bahadur for respondents.
(2.) By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the orders dated 19.01.1989 and 09.06.1989 passed by Regional Higher Education Officer contained in Annexures-4 and 5 of the supplementary affidavit filed along with Amendment Application No.115561 of 2013 which has been allowed by this Court on 1.07.2013. The petitioner was appointed on Class IV post on 2.6.1987. It appears from the aforesaid orders initially petitioner's appointment was disapproved on the ground that while making selection of petitioner against Class IV vacancy in K.K. Degree College, Etawah the provisions of Statute of the University have not been observed and no one has been appointed against the quota reserved for scheduled caste candidates while mentioning four names including the name of the petitioner at serial no.1 in the order dated 19.1.1989 and subsequently on the ground that the names of Brijendra Singh and petitioner was not forwarded by the Employment Exchange vide order dated 9.06.1989. It appears that thereafter the materials were placed by the Principal of the institution showing that petitioner's appointment was made on Class IV post after asking the name from Employment Exchange while making selection on the post in question. The sufficient observance of advertisement of vacancy has also been made by asking the names of candidates from the Employment Exchange. From the letter of Principal dated 24.6.1989 addressed to the Regional Higher Education Officer contained in Annexure-6 of the supplementary affidavit filed along with aforesaid amendment application it is clear that the name of the petitioner was at serial no.23 in the list containing the names of candidates forwarded by Employment Exchange to the Selection Committee and it is also shown by the Principal of the institution that the vacancies reserved for scheduled caste has already been fulfilled. Thus, it appears that there was no illegality in making selection of the petitioner on Class IV post in the institution and observation made by the Regional Higher Education Officer in the impugned orders dated 19.1.1989 and 9.6.1989 contained in Annexures-4 and 5 of the supplementary affidavit appears to be baseless and based on non-existant facts.
(3.) Thus, in my considered opinion, there can be no factual and legal basis to support the impugned orders passed by Regional Higher Education Officer. Thus, it cannot be said that the selection of the petitioner was made in violation of provisions of Statute of the University. Learned standing counsel could not point out anything so as to justify the orders impugned in the writ petition referred above and brought before this Court through supplementary affidavit filed along with amendment application.;