JITENDRA KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U P
LAWS(ALL)-2005-11-214
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on November 16,2005

JITENDRA KUMAR Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF U P Respondents

JUDGEMENT

AGARWALA, J. - (1.) ON 8.8.1998 an advertisement was issued for filling 91 posts of Cane Supervisor in the Cane Development Department of the Government of Uttar Pradesh. These 91 posts were to be filled up from the Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward class categories and candidates from the General Class category. The result pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement was declared on 5.3.1999. Before the appointment letters could be issued, the results were cancelled. The cancellation of the results were challenged in Writ Petition No.565 of 2000 which was eventually allowed by a judgement dated 1.5.2001 wherein the Court directed the respondents to appoint the selected candidates. It transpires that the State filed a Special Appeal which was dismissed by a judgment dated 18.7.2002.
(2.) INSPITE of the aforesaid, the State did not make any appointments. It transpires that several candidates filed contempt petitions and subsequently the first batch of appointments were made on 29.6.2002. It further transpires that the State Government, after verifying and scrutinising the certificates submitted by the candidates, cancelled the selection of 9 candidates vide orders dated 2.10.2002 and 26.10.2002. Eventually, out of 91 posts the respondents appointed 83 persons and 9 posts remained vacant. The petitioners are those persons who were in the waiting list declared by the respondents and have filed the present writ petition praying for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to appoint the petitioners on the post of Cane Supervisors on the basis of the waiting list prepared by them. The petitioners submitted that admittedly 9 posts have not been filled up and the same could be filled up from the candidates whose names were found in the waiting list and that the action of the respondents in not utilising the waiting list was arbitrary.
(3.) HEARD Sri Ashok Khare, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Vijay Kant Dwivedi for the petitioner and Sri J.K. Tiwari, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.