- (1.) HEARD counsel for the parties.
(2.) SINCE the counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged, in view of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952, the present petition is being disposed of finally at the stage of admission. The petitioner seeks mandamus directing the respondents to pay salary and other benefits to the petitioner since 19th of May 1988, and give him charge on the post of medical officer. The petitioner's case is that some vacancies for the post of medical officers in the health department were advertised through U. P. Public Service Commission. Allahabad, for which examination was conducted, in which the petitioner was selected and was declared, accordingly, when the result was published by the Public Service (Commission, which is Annexure-1 to the petition. On the 8th of April, 1988, a letter of appointment was issued to the petitioner appointing him in the district Nainital on the post of medical officer. On the 19th of May, 1988, the Chief Medical Officer, Nainital, directed the petitioner to join at the Primary Health Centre, Okhlkanda, in the same district (Annexure-2 . to the writ petition). In pursuance of the said letter, petitioner reported on 19th of May, 1988, before the Medical Officer Incharge, Primary Health Centre, Okhalkanda, with a letter for joining, but in spite of the said letter being received, the petitioner was not given charge. Therefore, the petitioner made several representations for not appointing the petitioner in spite of letter having been issued earlier. It is significant that thereafter the Director (Administration), respondent no. 2, vide letter dated the 25th of July, 1990, directed the Chief Medical Officer, Nainital, to give charge to the petitioner latest by the 30th of July, 1990. On the 28th of Sept. 1990, the petitioner sent a reminder again to the Health Secretary, respondent no. 3, about charge not being given. Thereafter the petitioner was informed by the Chief Medical Officer that the matter has been referred to the Director General at Lucknow. It is not necessary to refer t:he subsequent various letters, which were sent by the petitioner for permitting the petitioner to join, but he was not permitted to do the same. It is for this reason the petitioner has filed the present petition when no relief is granted in spite of the selection to the said post for the aforesaid direction.
(3.) IT is averred that after filing of the counter affidavit the petitioner having come to know that an order has been passed by respondents on the 21st of March, 1991, the petitioner amended the petition by adding relief of quashing this order and adding grounds below, which was allowed by means of a separate order. The respondents have not annexed the order dated the 21st of March, 1991, along, with the counter affidavit, though it has been averred in the counter affidavit ITself. We find this order has been annexed as annexure along with an affidavit filed by the petitioner while filing his application dated the 21st of December, 1993. The short controversy, which has been raised before this court is whether the respondents' action not appointing the petitioner, in spite of his being selected by Public Services Commission on the facts and circumstances of the case was justified or not.;