- (1.) This Special Appeal has been filed by the Chief Secretary to the Government of U.P., the Principal Secretary (Law)/Legal Remembrancer, Government of U.P., the Principal Secretary, (Home) State of U.P., the Director General of Police (P.A.C.) and the Battalion Commandant of P.A.C. against an order of the learned Single Judge dated 27.11.2013 directing the personal presence of the Chief Secretary and the Principal Secretary (Law)/L.R. in the court.
(2.) The Writ proceedings before the learned Single Judge have been instituted by the first respondent to question a selection list issued on 21.10.2013 by the Battalion Commandant of P.A.C. at Azamgarh for filling up vacancies in respect of the Group-D post of Cooks in P.A.C. On 12.10.2013, the learned Single Judge allowed the request of the learned Standing Counsel of an adjournment of two weeks to obtain instructions and to file a reply and directed that the proceedings shall be listed on 27.11.2013. When the proceedings came up on 27.11.2013 the learned Standing Counsel made a general grievance that though the counsel for the State do try their level best to comply with the orders of the Court, this is not possible either on account of the absence of adequate facilities or because of the negligence of the officers, who have to furnish instructions to counsel. The learned Single Judge noted that though a large number of Standing Counsel and Brief Holders have been assigned duty to the Court, most of them do not attend the Court and "simply get their bills prepared in collusion with the office". The Court was of the view that though the State is the largest litigant, it does not take effective steps for presentation of cases within time and the Law Officers of the State are handicapped because of a lack of timely instructions and due to the absence of appropriate facilities in their offices. In this background, the learned Single Judge observed that these problems cannot be solved without the cooperation of the department concerned. Consequently, the Legal Remembrancer/Principal Secretary (Law) as well as the Chief Secretary to the State Government were directed to appear before the Court on 12.12.2013 to explain as to why "they have created such kind of situation which is causing a lot of inconvenience in smooth functioning of the Court". The Court also observed that this kind of an attitude is causing interference in the administration of justice and is apparently contemptuous for which the officers are liable to be proceeded against. Besides summoning the Chief Secretary and Principal Secretary (Law), an interim order was passed not to make any appointment in pursuance of the selection.
(3.) The grievance of the appellants is that neither the Chief Secretary nor the Principal Secretary (Law), are parties to the proceedings before the learned Single Judge, neither of them have committed any breach of the orders of the Court nor have they been negligent in complying with a judicial direction. Moreover, it was urged that, in the present case, a letter was addressed by the Commandant on 24.11.2013 to the Chief Standing Counsel stating that the instructions, which have been furnished, had been forwarded for approval to the State Government since the Principal Secretary (Home) had also been impleaded as representing the State. Hence a request was made to apply before the Court for a further adjournment of four weeks to file a reply. In these circumstances, it was urged that there was no occasion to summon the Chief Secretary or the Principal Secretary (Law).;