- (1.) DR . Om Prakash Maurya and five others are before this Court with a request to quash the select list prepared in reference of contractual appointment on the post of Ayush Chikitsak based on the Interview.
(2.) RECORD in question reflects that complaining that selection proceedings has not been under on the parameter that has been provided for under taken policy decision so taken Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 13888 of 2014 (Dr. Om Prakash Maurya and others Vs. Union of India) has been filed and on 05.03.2014 this Court had proceeded to pass order directing therein that authorities concerned should call for the record and pass reasoned speaking order. Pursuant to the directives issued by this Court, petitioners have been provided opportunity of hearing and complaint had been made by them to the effect that at the point of time when selection exercise has been so undertaken candidature of local candidates have been ignored and further policy of reservation have not at all been adhered to in its words and spirit. Authority concerned thereafter has proceeded to make note of policy decision that has been floated on 23.10.2013 in reference of recruitment exercise and thereafter has given details of each and every candidate who has applied for consideration of their candidature and based on the said details that has been noted a mention has been made that all the incumbents whose name have been recommended are locally based and in reference of reservation also it has been mentioned that policy of reservation has been adhered to. This has impelled the petitioners to be once again before this Court.
(3.) SRI S.M. Tripathi, Advocate has assailed the validity of the decision so taken on the premises that outsiders have been accommodated and the local residence candidates as per policy decision were left out. Coupled with this it has also been sought to be contended that policy of reservation has not been honestly and bonafidly pressed into service. Request that has been made by the petitioners has been resisted by Sri H.K.Mishra, Advocate, as well as Sri Mrityunja Tiwari, Advocate representing respondent no. 1 alongwith learned Standing counsel by contending that selection exercise has been undertaken strictly as per the parameters of policy decision, as such no interference should be made.? After respective arguments have been advanced, factual situation that has so emerged that earlier petitioners had approached this Court and this Court directed the authority concern to examine the grievances of the petitioners and thereafter pursuant to directives issued by this Court, claim of the petitioners have been examined and it is reflected that based on the argument that has been so advanced select list dated 21.02.2014 has been examined and in reference to the said list in question that has been prepared wherein in column -3 permanent address, as per application form has been disclosed and in column -4, current? address of correspondence, as per application form has been disclosed. Authority concerned based on the policy decision that has been holding the field has clearly mentioned that candidates who have been selected are local residents and it has also been mentioned that a candidate is not at all required to be permanent resident of the aforesaid district. Once such facts have been mentioned that incumbents who have been appointed are local residents of concern district and based on merit select list has been prepared and appointment has been offered, then no interference is required to be made on this aspect of the matter.;