B.D.Agarwal, J. - (1.) The U. P. State Handloom Corporation Limited (Corporation for short) is a U. P. Government undertaking. On March 23, 1983 advertisement was made in newspapers inviting applications for appointment to posts of Project Officer/Assistant Project Officer in the Corporation in the pay-scale of Rs. 13i0-21o0 and Rs. 900-1770 per month besides perks respectively. The qualifications specified in the advertisement for these posts were as under:- JUDGEMENT_50_LAWS(ALL)8_1985.html
(2.) The petitioners in Writ Petition No. 11164 of 183 applied for appointment to the posts of Project Officers. On May 13, 1983, letter was issued by the Secretary asking them to appear for interview before the Selection Committee on June 4, 1983. The interview took place before the Selection Committee over which the Managing Director of the Corporation presided. On July 1, 1983, letter was issued to these petitioners under the signature of the Managing Director to the effect that consequent upon the interview held on 4th June, they had been selected for the post of Project Officers on the terms and conditions discussed at the time of interview. the salary offered was in the scale of Rs. 800-1450 per month instead of 1350-2100 as advertised. The letter also recited that formal appointment orders will be issued to the candidates as and when they reported for duty at the head-office. The petitioner No. 1 reported for duty on 12th July, 1983 ; the petitioner No. 3 did so on 2ld July, 1983. We leave out the case of the petitioner No. 2, who has since taken to some other service and it has been stated on his behalf that be is no longer interested in pursuing this petition. Training in the Quality Control Section of the Corporation was given to the petitioners for one week from July 25 to July 30, 198 5. Before the letter of appointment could, however, issue to any of the n or they could be paid any remuneration, the U. P. Hathkargha Nigam Karmchari Union filed Writ Petition No. 7689 of 1983 contending that the selection held on June 4, 1983 contending that the selection from the minimum qualifications laid. That writ petition was dismissed in limine on August 25, 1983, but upon the facts narrated therein coming to light there was a review made in the Corporation. The Chief Production Manager and the Senior Divisional Manager (Administration) submitted joint report dated 26th August, 1983, to the Managing Director, who had taken charge of the post on August 26, 1983. After review the Corporation decided to appoint the petitioners Nos. 1 and 3 to the post of Assistant Project Officers in the pay scale of Rs. 550-1200 stating also that the time scale was likely to be revised as per pay Commission Report. This was on 9th September, 1983, and the decision of the Corporation was communicated to the petitioners under the signature of the Managing Director. Aggrieved the petitioners have approached this court under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking writ of certiorari to quash the order, dated 9th September, 198 3, which is Annexure-IX to the writ petition and also mandamus directing the Corporation to appoint them on terms and conditions contained in the letter dated 1st July, 1983 (vide Annexure-III).
(3.) In the other Writ Petition No. 11165 of 1983 the three petitioners were candidates for the posts of Assistant Project Officer. In their case, too, letter, dated 1st July, 1983, was issued intimating that consequent upon interview held on 4th June, 1983, they had been selected for the post of assistant Project Officer on the terms and conditions discussed at the time of interview. The formal order of appointment was to issue when the ^candidates reported for duty at the head-office. In this case, too, there was review made by the Corporation on the facts relevant being brought to notice, namely, that the Selection has taken place without there fulfilling the required qualification of experience of five years in the weaving department of some reputed concern and this was followed by letter, dated 9th September, 1983, conveying the decision of the Corporation to the effect that they were appointed Superintendent Production in the time-scale of 400-750 likely to be revised in pursuance of the report of the Pay Commission. These petitioners have challenged the decision, thus, taken by the Corporation and sought direction for being given appointment on terms and conditions contained in the letter dated 1st July, 1983.;