Om Prakash, J. - (1.) In this petition for direction to opposite parties to appoint petitioner, a physically disabled person, on one of the posts reserved for disabled civilian candidates in the combined state Services Examination held in 1981, it stands highlighted how, at times, an average man is exposed to untold misery and hardship, due to slow movement in Government department and hesitation to assume responsibility. Since July 1983, well within one year from the date the result of the examination was declared in Sept., 1982, the petitioner who was at number one in the waiting list of reserved candidates, has been running and knocking every door to be appointed as Manager, Marketing and Economic Survey in the vacancy caused due to appointment of Sri Daya Ram Tripathi as Sales Tax Officer in May 1983, on the examination held in 1980, but to his misfortune despite recommendation in his favour by every department he drew blank in the end and why because according to commission one year having elapsed since result was announced, the waiting list had been rendered inoperative. Could opposite parties escape responsibility by taking shelter under Government Order No. 4/2/1977/14-Karmik D/- 30th Jan, 1979 is a question which needs scrutiny.
(2.) But it may be mentioned, of course, to amazement and anguish that the opposite parties have left even this Court in dark by not only its failure in filing counter-affidavit but also denying any assistance during hearing. When this petition was admitted on 13-11-1984 the Bench granted two weeks time to Standing Counsel to file counter-affidavit On 15th Jan., 1985 the interim order, granted on 13th Nov., 1984, for keeping one post reserved from examination of 1981 was confirmed. The Hon'ble Judge further observed that it was a fit case for early hearing. But as no counter-affidavit had been filed, the office put up the file before Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice with a report that as counter-affidavit had not been filed the case was not ready. On 31st Jan., 1985 the Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice granted three weeks and no more to Standing Counsel to file counter-affidavit. The petition was again listed on 15th Mar. 1985 before Hon. A.C.J. with office report that no counter-affidavit had been filed on which he directed the petition to be listed for hearing on 2nd April, 1985. When hearing of the petition commenced on 4th April, 1985 the learned standing Counsel stated that the learned Chief Standing Counsel was the counsel for Commission and he shall appear in this case. On his assurance to inform him the hearing of the petition was deferred for next day. And Sri N.P. Misra, Chief Standing Counsel did appear. But to astonishment of all he stated that Commission was not replying despite information, therefore, the Court may hear and decide the petition on merits. No request irrespective of what would have happened was made for extension of time. It left us shocked. Such a serious matter and taken so casually. But since opposite parties were not interested in filing counter-affidavit and contesting the petition, for reasons best known to them, may be apathy, or an indirect method of shifting the responsibility. but the Court was left in helpless situation of deciding the petition on un rebutted allegations without any assistance, even legal by opposite parties or their counsel in this Court.
(3.) In 1981 Combined State Services Examination was held for 226 posts. Out of it 2 per cent was reserved for disabled and physically handicapped civilian candidates whereas 8 per cent for disabled ex-servicemen and relieved Emergency Commission and Short Service Commissioned Officers. The break up of posts reserved for disabled civilian and servicemen was: JUDGEMENT_79_LAWS(ALL)4_1985.html By Government Order dated 20th May 1981 read with Government Order dated 18th July 1972 it was provided that in case sufficient number of disabled and other commissioned ex-servicemen were not available for the vacancies reserved for them, the unfilled vacancies shall be transferred to quota reserved for disabled civilian candidates. In para. 5 of the petition it is stated that out of four posts reserved for disabled civilian no selection was made for Sales Tax Officer and for the remaining three posts the Commission selected Sri Daya Ram Tripathi for the post of Deputy Collector, Sri Jagdish Singh for Manager Marketing and Economic Survey and Sri Bhanu Pratap Shukla for Treasury Officer. And petitioner was placed at serial No. 1 in the waiting list. If is averred in para. 6 that the petitioner was called for interview for all the posts reserved for disabled and was successful also against all the posts. He is further stated to have appeared in the additional paper of mathematics which was necessary for being considered for appointment in accounts service. It is claimed that out of 16 posts reserved for disabled ex-service personnel, only four were selected. Therefore remaining 12 posts should have been filled by disabled civilians. Apart from it, according to petitioner. Sri Daya Rama Tripathi joined the post of Sales Tax Officer in May 1983. On 5th July, 1983 petitioner made representation to Secretary appointment informing him that on examination of 1980 Sri Tripathi has been appointed as Sales Tax Officer. Therefore he has declined the appointment given to him on 1981 examination. It was also stated that complaint had been made that Jagdish Singh had obtained forged and fraudulent disability certificate. Therefore, after inquiry his candidature may be cancelled and petitioner may be appointed in the reserved quota for disabled civilians. In para. 11 it is stated that candidature of Jagdish Singh was ultimately cancelled by Commission on 16th Mar. 1983. Since then the petitioner has been making representations, both before the Government as well as the Commission and the net result obtained by him was blank. In 1983 when he made the representation, it is claimed that the Chief Minister of U. P. recommended his case and directed the Secretary, Appointment Department to look into the matter. It is further claimed that in the endorsement made by Chief Secretary's office it was mentioned that immediate action should be taken. This endorsement is stated to have been made on 5th July 1983. But things appear to have remained as they were. Consequently, the petitioner filed another representation on 24-2-1984 with the same result that it was forwarded to the Secretary,' Appointment Department with the same endorsement to take immediate action, and the result was also the same, that is, no action. Thereafter, representations were made by the petitioner, the Chief Minister, Joint Secretary and Joint Secretary (Karmik) on 8-3-1984 and 18-5-1984. In pursuance of that there was some movement and the Special Officer to the Chief Minister, U. P. informed the petitioner by letter dated 26th May 1984 that petitioner's letter had been sent for necessary action to the Secretary (Karmik). According to the petitioner, the matter of appointment of disabled persons was also the subject-matter of consideration in U. P. Legislative Assembly in the month of May/ June, 1984. As stated earlier, even the Assembly Question or a letter by the Personnel Officer of the Chief Secretary could not be fruitful and did not achieve any purpose. It is claimed that in 1984 the petitioner came to know that Sri Tripathi, who was appointed to the post of Manager Marketing and Economic Survey, in the Department of Industries, had not joined. Then he met the Appointment Secretary on 16th Aug., 1984 by means of a representation claiming that he may be appointed to that post. On this application, it is claimed that the Appointment Secretary sent a letter dated 16th Aug., 1984 through a special messenger to the U. P. Public Service Commission enclosing therewith a copy of the aforesaid letter to the Industries Secretary, dated 19th July 1984, about the cancellation of the candidature of Daya Ram Tripathi and requesting the Commission to forward the name from the waiting list of the disabled persons for appointment against the said post. In the meantime the candidature of Jagdish Singh was also cancelled, a fresh representation was made by the petitioner on 1st Sept., 1984 to the Chairman of the U. P. Public Service Commission, requesting that his name be forwarded to the State Government for appointment to the post of Manager, Marketing and Economic Survey. In Sept., 1984, on the direction by the Chairman of the Commission, the petitioner is said to have contacted the Secretary of the Commission, who informed him that his name from the waiting list could not be forwarded to the State Government as in view of Government Order dated 2-2-1981 the list of the successful candidates could be availed of only for a period of one year from the date of declaration of the result. Thus, the representations made by the petitioner both to the Government and the Commission resulted in final intimation that as the period of one year, as provided in Government Order, had expired, it was not possible either for the Commission to recommend the name of the petitioner, or for the Government to appoint him.;