- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
(2.) THIS special appeal has been preferred challenging the validity and correctness of the judgment and order dated 8.5.2014 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 21376 of 2006, Mukesh Kumar versus State of U.P. through Secretary Home Department and others, whereby the aforesaid writ petition had been dismissed.
(3.) THE facts culled out from the record in a nut -shell are that the appellant was appointed on the post of Bandi Rakshak by way of direct recruitment. He participated in the selection as a general category candidate and his name was placed at serial no. 1 in the waiting list. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the High Court by means of writ petition no. 7031 of 2002, Mukesh Kumar versus State of U.P. through Secretary Home Department and others, on the ground that some candidates below his merit were appointed, as such, his right for appointment on the post in question may be protected. The aforesaid writ petition was finally allowed by the Court vide judgment and order dated 10.12.2002, which reads thus: - " Heard Sri V.K. Goel, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel who, represents the respondents. The contention of the petitioner is that three posts of Bandi Rakshak fell vacant while the process of selection was going on and in terms of the advertisement the vacanices advertised were liable to be increased or decreased, as the circumstances warranted. According to Sri Goel out of three vacancies, which occurred during the process of selection, appointment of two posts have been made from amongst the candidates appearing in the waiting list of reserved categories i.e. one from schedule caste category and the other from backward class category has been made. He submitted that according to the roster prescribed by the State Government as notified on 29.03.1994 vide notification No. 481/Ka/1 -94 -1.1.1994, the 60th post was to be filled up by the candidate belonging from unreserved category i.e. from general class and no appointment can be made from the reserved category on the said post. In paragraph 13 of the counter affidavit filed by Dinesh Kumar Singh, Jailor, District Jail Meerut. On behalf of the respondent no. 1 to 4, it is stated that 61 candidates have been given appointment during the selection occurring of three vacancies during the process of selection has also been stated by the respondent is paragraph 12 of the counter affidavit. It has also been submitted that in paragraph 14 of the counter affidavit that two persons namely, Ajay Kumar and Manoj Kumar were given appointment whose name appeared in the waiting list of schedule caste and other backward class category respectively. Thus, it is clear that all persons, who have placed on the selected list have been given appointment. In addition two more persons whose name appeared in the waiting list of the schedule caste and other backward class category candidates have been given appointment. The 60th post according to the roster applicable was to be filled up from amongst general class candidates. It is not disputed that the name of the petitioner stood at serial no. 1 on the waiting list. Thus, the respondent no. 4 ought to have given appointment to the petitioner. In this view of the matter the writ petition succeeds and allowed. The respondent no. 2 is directed to issue appointment letter to the petitioner on the post of Bandi Rakshak in District jail, Meerut one month from the date of production of the certified copy of this order." In compliance of the aforesaid order, the petitioner was appointed on the post of Bandi Rakshak on 09.04.2003 subject to the outcome of special appeal no. 139 of 2003 filed by the State Government against the judgment and order dated 10.12.2002 which was dismissed by the court on 05.10.2003.;