- (1.) S. S. Chauhan, J. The brief facts relevant to the present controversy are that the petitioner is a person belonging to the general category, who was selected in pursuance to the advertisement issued on 10-8-1998. In all 66 vacancies were notified. Out of which 33 vacancies were for the reserved category and 33 vacancies were for the general category.
(2.) THE petitioner is the person whose name appeared in the select list at serial No. 31 and having been selected within 33 vacancies falling in the quota of general category, was not given appointment. THE result of the selection was declared on 10-3- 1999, out of 66 vacancies only 60 candidates were shown to have been selected. THE rest of 6 candidates were placed in the waiting list. THE name of the petitioner appeared at serial No. 1 in the said waiting list in the general category. All the selected candidates were issued call letters. THE petitioner made representation to the opposite parties on 23rd August, 1999 requesting them to appoint the petitioner on the above posts. THEreafter Zila Vikas Adhikari, Gonda, sent a letter to the Commissioner, Gram Vikas, U. P. , Lucknow requesting him to fill up further 9 posts of Gram Vikas Adhikari which were then lying vacant from the said waiting list. The petitioner thereafter sent representations on 11-9-1999, 8-12-1999 and 18-1-2000 for considering his candidature and giving him appointment but he failed to receive any information from the opposite parties. On 28-1-2000 the Commissioner, Gram Vikas, U. P. Lucknow sent a letter asking the vacancy position from Zila Vikas Adhikari, Gonda. The District Development Officer, by means of the letter dated 7-2-2000, wrote to Commissioner, Gram Vikas, U. P. , Lucknow informing that still 13 vacancies of the posts of Gram Vikas Adhikari exist. On the above facts, the present writ petition has been filed with the prayer that the petitioner may be given appointment on the post of Gram Vikas Adhikari, as he was legally justified in getting the appointment on the basis of the regular selection and also that his name finds place at serial No. 1 in the waiting list. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the name of the petitioner could not have been placed in the waiting list as the advertisement was for 66 vacancies and the 33 vacancies were to be filed up by general category candidates but instead of appointing 33 persons of general category only 30 persons were appointed and the petitioner was shown in the waiting list. He also submits that the vacancies were existing in the District Gonda and that appointment could not have been denied unless and until there were compelling and justified reasons with the opposite parties. The opposite parties have filed counter- affidavit wherein they have said that the post in question has been declared to be a dying cadre post and, therefore, the appointment could not have been done. The further submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the post in question has been filed up by way of transfer of an incumbent from other district, and, therefore, the appointment could not have been denied to the petitioner being mala fide.
(3.) LEARNED Standing Counsel also submits that 66 vacancies at the time of interview were determined by the opposite parties and thereafter were reduced to 60, in the meantime 5 persons were transferred from other district and 60 candidates joined and the petitioner who was placed in the waiting list does not possess any right for appointment on the post in question. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record.;