- (1.) V. K. Shukla, J. Petitioners, who are two in number have approached this Court with the prayer that a writ in the nature of mandamus be issued commanding the respondents to appoint the petitioners on the post of Tube- well operator in the Department of Irrigation, District Gonda on the basis of the selection held on 7-1- 1994 and further for quashing of the order dated 19-4-2001 passed by the Engineer-in-Chief, Irrigation Department, U. P. , Lucknow rejecting the claim of the petitioners.
(2.) BRIEF background of the case is that selection proceedings were undertaken for making selection and appointment on the post of Tube-well operator on 7-1-1994. Result of the said selection was declared on 9-9-1994. In the said select list, which was published, name of both the petitioners figured as successful candidatures. Qua the same selection in the District Bahraich and Barabanki appointment letter had been issued to selected persons and it has been mentioned that said incumbents are continuing even as on date. Petitioners were denied appointment on the strength of the order dated 4- 10-1994 issued by the Engineer-in-Chief, Irrigation Department, U. P. Lucknow directing therein that no further appointment shall be made on the post of Tube-well operator. Other candidates, who were similarly situated, approached this Court by preferring Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1939 (S/s) of 1998 and this Court in the said writ petition directed that Engineer-in-Chief, Irrigation Department, U. P. Lucknow shall nominate any Chief Engineer (Level-I or Level-II) to look into as to why petitioners of the aforementioned writ petition have been discriminated. In the said order it was also mentioned that if sufficiently good reasons do not exist for not appointing the petitioners of the aforementioned writ petition, then they shall be offered appointments. Thereafter, another writ petition No. 1453 (S/s) of 1998 Surya Prakash Tiwari & Ors. v. State of U. P. & Ors. , had been filed. Said writ petition alongwith Writ Petition No. 3144 (S/s) of 1995 was finally decided on 22-1-2000, with following direction, relevant extract of which is being quoted below: "it is settled law that life of the select list is only one year and if the select list stands in existence and in case any vacancy occurs in that year, the members of the select list are entitled for appointments since the petitioners have filed the writ petition within a year of the select list. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the Engineer-in- Chief, Irrigation Department, U. P. Lucknow is directed to authorize the Chief Engineer (Level-I or Level-II) this order and the Chief Engineer so nominated shall submit his report to the Engineer-in-Chief within two months from the date of receipt of the said nomination. It is further directed that if sufficiently good reasons do not exist for not appointing the petitioners, they shall also be offered appointments. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the Engineer-in- Chief, Irrigation Department, U. P. Lucknow is directed to authorize any Chief Engineer (Level-I or Level-II) other than the Chief Engineer of the said Area, to look into the matter as to why the petitioners have been deprived the appointment for the vacancies published for appointments for which the selection was held. In case the Chief Engineer finds that they were illegally deprived of the appointments, then the appointment letters shall be offered to the petitioners of the above mentioned writ petitions, if the vacancies exist. " Petitioners also in their turn preferred writ petition No. 7485 (S/s) of 2000 and this Court on the presentation of aforementioned writ petition on 20-12-2000 asked the Engineer-in- Chief, Irrigation Department, U. P. Lucknow to consider the matter with reasoned order and further also look as to what was the reason for not appointing the petitioner while other selected persons have been given appointment in the District. Pursuant to this directive issued, Engineer-in-Chief, Irrigation Department, U. P. Lucknow on 19-1-2001 proceeded to consider the claim of the petitioners and rejected the same. At this juncture present writ petition has been filed.
(3.) SUBSEQUENT to the same, as directed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 3144 (S/s) of 1995, Vijay Kumar Upadhyaya & Ors. v. State of U. P. & Ors. , and Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1453 (S/s) of 1998, Surya Prakash Tiwari & Ors. v. State of U. P. & Ors. the Engineer-in-Chief, Irrigation Department, U. P. Lucknow made inquiry and proceeded to cancel the order passed by the Chief Engineer (Mechanical) and mentioned therein that 12 petitioners of aforementioned writ petition be offered appointment after requisite approval is obtained by the Secretary, Irrigation Department, U. P. Lucknow. In this report claim of the petitioners has also been dealt with and therein it has been mentioned that there is no fault on the part of the petitioners and in case result would have been declared in time, then petitioners would have been offered appointment. It has also been mentioned that delay in declaration of the result was on account of department concerned and petitioners have been illegally deprived. The other persons, thereafter have been offered appointment by the Executive Engineer, Irrigation Department, Gonda on 12-4-2005 copy of the said order has been appended alongwith supplementary affidavit as SA-I. Pursuant to same placement has also been accorded on 28-8- 2005. It has also been informed, that subsequently Government order dated 19-7-2005 and 8-8-2005 has been issued providing therein that Tube-wells and Tube-well Operators/part Time Tube- well operators be returned back to Irrigation Department. Counter affidavit has been filed in the present case and therein it has been contended that pursuant to the order issued by Hon'ble Apex Court, order dated 4-10-1994 had been issued and claim of the petitioners has been rightly rejected, as same was unsustainable. Order passed by the Engineer-in-Chief, Irrigation Department, U. P. Lucknow has been sought to be substantiated.;