- (1.) Heard Sri H.R.Misra, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri K.M.Misra on behalf of the petitioner, Sri R.B.Pradhan, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State and Sri Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the Commission.
(2.) This writ petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs: "(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to direct the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission, Allahabad to conduct the interview of the petitioner of the Uttar Pradesh Combined Upper Subordinate Services (Mains) Examination, 2010 as a Scheduled Tribe category and thereupon to declare his result; (ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents authorities to consider the candidature of the petitioner for appointment against the available vacancies in the Scheduled Tribe category on the basis of the over all marks obtained by the petitioner (written and interview examination) in case the marks obtained by the petitioner is found higher than the last selected candidate of Uttar Pradesh Combined Upper Subordinate Services (Mains) Examination, 2010; (iii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent authorities to consider the candidature of the petitioner for his appointment over and above the candidates finally selected in the Scheduled Tribe category on the basis of over all marks secured by the petitioner on the basis of written and interview examination in Uttar Pradesh Combined Upper Subordinate Services (Mains) Examination, 2010;" On 9th May, 2014, this Court passed the following interim order. "Heard Sri H.R.Misra, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2, the U.P.Public Service Commission as well as learned Standing Counsel for the respondent no. 1, the State. The petitioner has come up praying for a Mandamus directing the U.P.Public Service Commission to consider his candidature in respect of interviews to be conducted for the U.P.Combined Upper Subordinate Services (Mains) Examination, 2010 under the Scheduled Tribe category. The petitioner claims himself to be of 'Nayak' caste and submits that he is entitled to the benefit of such reservation keeping in view the Presidential Order dated 7th January, 2003, copy whereof has been filed as Annexure 1-A to the writ petition. Sri H.R.Misra, learned senior counsel for the petitioner points out that the dispute of inclusion of the caste of the petitioner, has already been settled by the Lucknow Bench of this Court by the judgment dated 24th February, 2014, copy whereof has been filed on record and urged that in spite of the same, the State Government has yet not issued any direction in compliance thereof as a consequence whereof the petitioner is suffering recurring loss. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner is pursuing this litigation for long, yet he has not been successful in getting the benefit of the said caste as Scheduled Tribe. Sri Misra has also placed reliance on a Full Bench decision of Madras High Court in the case of Tamilnadu Public Service Commission vs. R.Manikandan & others,2011 5 ESC 3146 to urge that in view of the status of the petitioner and his caste, as provided in the Presidential Order, the petitioner is entitled to the consideration and appointment as Scheduled Tribe. In our considered opinion, primafacie, the State Government has now to take appropriate steps for intimating the U.P.Public Service Commission about the status of the petitioner and his caste as per the judgement of the Lucknow Bench dated 24.02.2014. The respondent State Government is therefore, put to show cause and produce the order passed in compliance of the judgment of the Lucknow Bench dated 24.02.2014 by the next date of listing. List on 26.05.2014."
(3.) On 26th May, 2014, when this matter was taken up, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State, informed that a meeting of the State Level Screening Committee was scheduled to be held on 3rd June, 2014, therefore, the Court adjourned this case to 2nd July, 2014, on which date, the decision so taken was to be communicated to the Court as also to the respondent Commission.;