K.C. Bhargava, J. - (1.) The petitioners have filed the present writ petition for directing the opposite parties to give effect to the select list prepared by the selection committee and to give the petitioners appointment on the basis of that list as Section Mistri. It has also been prayed that the opposite parties be also restrained from appointing any Section Mistri outside the list.
(2.) The facts giving rise to this petition are that the petitioners possess the requisite qualifications for the post of Section Mistri and they were initially engaged on daily wage basis under the establishment of the opposite parties. The petitioners along with other departmental candidates, applied for appointment to the post of Section Mistri In all 18 departmental candidates possessing the requisite qualifications were called for written test and interview. Thereafter a select list of 13 persons was published for appointment as Section Mistri, a copy of which is Annexure 1 to the writ petition. This select list is dated 14th December, 1994. This list was 6ent by the Chairman of the Select on Committee to the Superintending Engineer Indoduteh Tubewell Construction Circle. Faizabad, opposite party No. 3, for issuing appointment letters to the selected candidates in accordance with the merits which they obtained during the selection but the opposite party No. 3 adopted the manner of pick and choose and thus issued appointment letters to the candidates standing at serial Nos. 7, 9, 12 and 15 while the petitioners names find place at serial Nos. 6, 8, 10 and 13 of the list. This discrimination has been done by the opposite party No. 3 in making appointment of the selected candidates. It has also been alleged that the persons junior to the petitioners could not have been appointed unless the petitioners had been given appointment. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners the merit of the select list cannot be disturbed at the whims of the opposite parties.
(3.) In the counter-affidavit filed by the opposite parties it is admitted that the selection procedure was followed and the petitioners were not approved for certain reasons. It is admitted that the petitioners and other persons who possessed requisite qualifications were examined in writing and orally. The Selection Committee found the petitioners suitable and included their names in the select list as mentioned in Annexure 1 to the writ petition. It was made clear by the Personal Assistant to the Chief Engineer, irrigation Department vide his letter No. 1839 dated 3-7-1987 that the regular appointments shall be made only on the availability of post and orders of the Engineer-in-Chief or the Government of Uttar Pradesh. The case of the petitioners for appointment to the regular post was referred to the Chief Engineer by the office. The Senior Staff Officer (W.B.) of Engineer-in-Chief Office vide his letter dated 2-3-1995 replied that only work charged employees are to be considered and therefore the petitioners were not entitled for appointment to the post of Section Mistri and their selection was not approved. It cannot be said that the petitioners have been left arbitrarily while others have been approved for appointment to the post of Section Mistri. A copy of the letter dated 2-3-1995 is Annexure-C-1 to the counter-affidavit. The petitioners have not been approved in view of the Chief Engineer's direction. The posts of Section Mistri are still lying vacant but the petitioners cannot be appointed as explained above The petitioners have no legal claim to the post of Section Mistri as they have not been approved.;