- (1.) Heard Sri Vinod Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Sameer Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents no.2 & 3 and Sri Mata Prasad, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondent no.1. No one appears on behalf of the respondent no.4.
(2.) The petitioner is seeking quashing of the order dated 11.11.2013 whereby one Rajani Kant Kaul alongwith respondent no.4, Vijay Kumar Srivastava have been promoted from Class IV to Class III. On 26.02.2008 applications were invited from employees working on Group-D posts in the judgeship, Chandauli for promotion from Group-D to Group-C post. The petitioner alongwith other persons applied for promotion. The result of the examination dated 19.07.2008 was published and pasted on the notice board. On the basis of this select list certain persons were given promotion. The petitioner alongwith others challenged the aforesaid promotion through Writ Petition No.39218 of 2008, Rajani Kant Kaul and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others. Learned Single Judge hearing the matter after going through the records, recorded a clear cut finding that the petitioner no.1 therein had obtained 33.5 marks, petitioner no.2 had obtained 23.5 marks, petitioner no.3 (present petitioner) had obtained 29.5 marks and petitioner no.4 had obtained 23.75 marks. A finding was also recorded that the respondent no.5 had obtained 25 marks and respondent no.6 had obtained 26 marks and the respondents no.5 & 6 had been selected and appointed even though the petitioner no.1, petitioner no.3 and respondent no.4 had obtained more marks than the respondents no.5 & 6. On these findings the writ petition was allowed and the selection made was quashed. A direction was issued to the respondents to issue appointment letters in accordance with the merit list on the basis of the marks obtained by the respective candidates. Operative portion of the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 30.07.2012 reads as under: "A perusal of the merit list as prepared and annexed as Annexure CA-3 to the counter affidavit of the respondent no. 3 shows that out of maximum 50 marks the petitioner no. 1 obtained 33.5 marks, petitioner no. 2 obtained 23.5 marks, petitioner no. 3 obtained 29.5 marks and petitioner no. 4 obtained 23.75 marks. However, even though the respondent no. 5 obtained 25 marks while respondent no. 6 obtained 26 marks were selected and appointed. The respondent no. 4 had obtained 30.5 marks therefore, the petitioner no. 1 and petitioner no. 3 who had obtained 33.5 and 29.5 were higher in merit than respondent nos. 5 and 6. For the reasons above, this petition succeeds and is allowed and the selections made are hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to issue appointment letters in accordance to the merit list annexed as Annexure-3 strictly on the basis of the marks obtained by the respective candidates so that two persons are appointed in the 15% category who are at least High School and one candidate is appointed to the 5% reserved post who is at least Intermediate. In case, a candidate already selected meets the aforesaid requirement, his appointment may not be quashed. The candidates now appointed would be entitled to count their seniority from the earlier date. In the circumstances of the case, no order as to costs."
(3.) Aggrieved the respondents no.5 & 6 filed Special Appeal No.1580 of 2012, Sunil Puri and Another Vs. State of U.P. and Others in which interim order was granted by the Division Bench on 28.09.2012. Subsequently, the Special Appeal No.1580 of 2012 was heard and was dismissed on merit recording a finding that the learned Single Judge vividly described the merit of the respective candidates and found that those who are higher in merit have been eliminated on the irrational reasoning of higher qualification. The operative portion of the Division Bench judgment reads as under: "Apart from this the learned Single Judge has also vividly described the merits of the respective candidates and found that those higher in merit have been eliminated on the irrational reasoning of higher qualification. This additionally impels us to decline any relief to the appellants. The appeal for the reasons here-in-above lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. The interim order stands discharged. No costs.";