Sudhir Agarwal, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. The counter and rejoinder affidavits have already been exchanged and with the consent of the parties, the writ petition being heard and decided finally under the Rules of the court at the admission stage.
(2.) THE petitioner had challenged the advertisements dated 23rd July 2001 and 30th January 2002, (Annexure No. 5 and 7). However, a perusal of Annexure No. 5 shows that it is not an advertisement but the order dated 23rd October 2001 rejecting the representation dated 30th July 2001 of the petitioner against the selection held for the post of Messenger, in pursuance to the advertisements dated 14th February 2001 and 2nd June 2001. Similarly Annexure No. 7 is the order dated 30th January 2002, rejecting the petitioner's representation against his non-selection for the post of Messenger in pursuance to the advertisements dated 2nd June 2001 and 20th July 2001. However, instead of dismissing the petition on this ground alone, the court has considered the grievances of the petitioner on merits inspite of the aforesaid defects in the relief sought in the writ petition, which has not been rectified or corrected by the petitioner. The case of the petitioner is that vide advertisement dated 14th February 2001, one post of Messenger was advertised and on 2nd June 2001 two posts of Messengers were advertised. It is further alleged that the Respondent No. 2, without making proper advertisement and following proper procedure, appointed illegally certain persons who are not eligible, in a hurried manner. The petitioner submitted that his mother made a complaint against the corrupt practices followed in making appointments, where after the petitioner also preferred a Writ Petition No. 27029 of 2001, challenging the entire selection, but the writ petition was dismissed vide judgment dated 25th July 2001, with the observation that the petitioner may make a comprehensive representation before the Respondent No. 1, and the concerned authority was directed to decide the same in accordance with law.
(3.) THE petitioner claims that he made a representation in pursuance to the said order on 3rd August 2001, which was rejected, vide Annexure No. 5, which is an order dated 23rd October 2001. Similarly in respect to another advertisement for six posts of Messengers the petitioner approached this court in Writ Petition No. 32001 of 2001, which was also dismissed by the Hon'ble Court vide judgment dated 8th October 2001, with the observation permitting the petitioner to make a representation which was to be decided by a competent authority in accordance with law. In pursuance to the said direction the petitioner made representation dated 19th October 2001, which has been dismissed by the authorities vide order dated 30th January 2002. The Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in making the aforesaid selection no procedure has been followed and the entire selection is illegal, arbitrary and suffers from corrupt practices adopted by the respondents. It is also submitted that the selection has been finalized in a hurried manner, which shows malafide involvement of the respondent and vitiates the entire selection.;