MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, J. - (1.) OFFICE report dated 23rd July 2014 indicates that notices sent to respondent Nos. 4 and 5 by speed post have not been received back so far. By way of abundant caution, the petitioner was directed to serve respondent Nos. 4 and 5 by Dasti Summons. An affidavit of service has been filed by the petitioner, in which it is stated that respondent No. 4 has accepted the notice while respondent No. 5 refused to receive the same. There is another office report dated 28th October 2014, according to which, service on respondent No. 5 has been deemed sufficient under Chapter VIII Rule 12 Explanation 2 of the Rules of the Court. In spite of sufficient service, no one has appeared on behalf of respondent Nos. 4 & 5.
(2.) HEARD counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Sri Ajay Kumar for respondent No. 3. It is stated by learned counsel for the respondents that the relevant material is already on record and they do not wish to file any counter affidavit.
(3.) THE dispute in the instant writ petition relates to selection on the post of Prerak in Village Panchayat Paing Vikas Khand Hariyawan district Hardoi. The case of the petitioner is that there are two posts of Prerak in the village, out of which, first post is reserved in view of the fact that the Pradhan of the village is a reserved category candidate. Consequently, the 2nd post is to be filled up by General category female candidate on the basis of merit. The petitioner is at Serial No. 2 in the merit list while respondent No. 5 at Serial No. 3. There is no dispute that the person at Serial No. 1 has been appointed against the reserved post. The petitioner, thereafter, became entitled for being appointed against the other post. However, it is contended that the State respondents in order to appease certain politician, appointed respondent No. 5 on the post of Prerak, though she was lower in the merit list. The petitioner has prayed for quashing of the appointment of respondent No. 5 on the post of Prerak and for appointing the petitioner in her place. On 28th March 2014, the following order was passed: - "Heard Sri Katyayan Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ajay Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the B.S.A. On 13.03.2014, learned Standing Counsel Sri Ajay Kumar was granted ten days' time to seek instruction in the matter. The petitioner has challenged the appointment of opposite party no. 5 and also prayed that he may be given appointment on the second post of Prerak which is a general post. There were two posts of Prerak in village - Paing, Post - Goppamau, Block - Hariyawan, District - Hardoi. He submits that the first post is a reserved category post because the Pradhan of that village is also a reserved category Pradhan. Naturally, the second post becomes general. The second post had to be given to a person who was higher in merit amongst the lady candidate. On the basis of instructions, Sri Ajay Kumar informed that the version of the petitioner is correct. The petitioner has obtained 36 quality point marks while opposite party no. 5 has obtained 31 quality point marks. The merit of the petitioner is higher than opposite party no. 5. A prima facie case is made out in favour of the petitioner. Hence, learned counsel for the opposite party Sri Ajay Kumar prays for and is granted four weeks' time to file detailed counter affidavit. Issue notice to opposite party nos. 4 and 5, returnable at an early date. They are also permitted to file their counter affidavit during this period. List thereafter. Till the next date of listing, the appointment of opposite party no. 5 shall remain stayed."? ;