- (1.) HEARD Sri G. C. Verma, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing counsel for quite some time.
(2.) THIS is an unfortunate case which has dragged on because of adamant approach of the opposite parties. The matter has come up before this Court but one after the other some technical points were raised and the matter could not be finally adjudicated. Affidavits after affidavits were filed and the file has become bulky because of unnecessary supplementary affidavits.
(3.) THE petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court towards the judgment passed by this Court in the matter of writ petition No.7750 (S/S) of 2011 (Harish Kumar Srivastava VS. State of U.P. and others).? I have examined the matter in the present writ petition which is identical to that of Harish Kumar Srivastava. The judgement passed in the case of Harish Kumar Srivasava was applicable to the case of the petitioners who are of the same selection and of the same batch initially. The present case well as the case of Harish Kumar Srivastava have been argued conjointly but some how the matters got disconnected in the Court and hearing was accorded to the case of Harish Kumar earlier than the petitoiner. Learned Standing counsel has pointed out that the only difference between two cases relates to their categories. Harish Kumar Srivastava belonged to general category candidate while the petitioners belonged to Scheduled Caste category.;