B.S.CHAUHAN, BHARATI SAPRU, JJ. - (1.) THIS Writ Petition has been filed for issuing a direction to the respondents to reshuffle the select list and appoint the petitioner on the post of Trade Tax Officer in pursuance of the U.P. Combined State/Upper Subordinate Services Examination, 1993 conducted by the U.P. Public Service Commission, U.P., Allahabad in January, 1996, in reserved (Scheduled Casts) category.
(2.) THE facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that U.P. Combined State/Upper Subordinate Services Examination, 1993 was held and that its result was declared in May, 1996. Petitioner's name appeared at Serial No. 163 of the successful candidates. He belongs to the Scheduled Caste Category. Appointments were notified on 10th July, 1997 and petitioner had been offered appointment in U.P. Finance and Accounts Services. Petitioner joined the aforesaid service on 25th July, 1997. Two candidates of the Scheduled Caste Category, who had been offered the post of Trade Tax Officer, did not join. They had been placed in the combined select list over and above the petitioner as their names appeared at Serial Nos. 155 and 160. In the instant case, in spite of repeated representations moved by the petitioner on 4.3.1998 and 5th August, 1999, the select list was not reshuffled nor the appointment was offered to the petitioner on the post of Trade Tax Officer, though in other categories, in similar circumstances, the select list was reshuffled and higher posts were offered to the candidates who had joined other senders. Hence, the present petition. Shri R.C. Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as two candidates belonging to the Scheduled Caste Category did not join the post of Trade Tax Officer, it was necessary for the respondents to reshuffle the select list and offer appointment to the petitioner on the post of Trade Tax Officer, as has been done in other branches of the administration. Therefore, the petition deserves to be allowed.
(3.) ON the other hand, Shri M.A. Qadeer, learned Counsel appearing for the Commission and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the other respondents have submitted that the select list had a life of only one year which expired long back, therefore, the petitioner cannot claim any benefit at such a belated stage. Marc inclusion of someone's name in the panel or in waiting list does not confer any legal right to be appointed. Even if some persons have been better posts after reshuffling subsequent to the expiry of the life of the select list, petitioner cannot claim parity with them. Therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed.;