- (1.) The respondent filed a writ petition on or about 22 February 2015, seeking the following relief: "(I) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding to the opposite parties to extend the benefit of judgment and order dated 19.08.2006 passed in writ petition no.4031 S/S of 2001 Pratap Narain Pandey Vs State of U.P. and others to the petitioner and also to permit him to join duty with the immediate effect as contained in Annexure no.1 to this writ petition."
(2.) In his writ petition, the respondent averred that an advertisement was issued in 1986 for the appointment of regular Collection Amins and after a due selection process, a select list of 186 candidates was prepared in which his name appeared at serial number 54. The case of the respondent was that it was incumbent upon the State to provide him appointment on the post of regular Collection Amin, but he was permitted to work only as a Seasonal Collection Amin since 5 June 1986. The respondent claimed that one Pratap Narain Pandey had filed a writ petition in 1990 (Writ Petition No.10539 (S/S) of 1990) and a writ petition in 2001 (Writ Petition No.4031 (S/S) of 2001) which were allowed on 19 August 2006. Against that order, it was contended that a special leave petition was dismissed. On this basis, the respondent sought the benefit of the judgment in Pratap Narain Pandey's case. The learned Single Judge recorded the statement of the learned Standing Counsel that the case was covered by the judgment and order dated 19 August 2006 in the case of Pratap Narain Pandey. Accordingly, the writ petition was disposed of finally with a direction to the State Government to grant to the respondent the benefit of the judgment and order dated 19 August 2006 in Writ Petition No.4031 (S/S) of 2001 (Pratap Narain Pandey Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh).
(3.) In the special appeal, which has been filed by the State Government, it has been submitted that the respondent upon being selected/engaged as a Seasonal Collection Amin had worked for twenty six days with effect from 5 June 1986 to 30 June 1986. The respondent moved the writ proceedings nearly twenty nine years after the date of his disengagement from the post of Seasonal Collection Amin seeking to claim the benefit of the select list and of the judgment delivered in the case of Pratap Narain Pandey. The submission of the State is that the writ petition suffered from delay and laches and ought to have been dismissed only on that ground. In this connection, reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court, inter alia, in State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, 2008 1 SCC 456 to submit that even the selected candidates do not have a legal or vested right to appointment. Moreover, it was submitted that having regard to the fact that there was an unexplained delay of twenty nine years, the learned Single Judge ought not to have entertained the writ petition.;