- (1.) This petition has been filed challenging the advertisement and for a mandamus commanding the respondents to appoint petitioner on the vacant post of Junior Clerk. It appears that the petitioner applied for appointment to the post of Junior Clerk, pursuant to an advertisement published on 15.7.1997, whereby 8 posts were sought to be filled from persons belonging to reserved category in special recruitment. Pursuant to the selection, petitioner was placed at Sl. No. 1 in waiting list. It seems that the entire selection proceedings, in which the petitioner had applied was set aside by the order of the Divisional Commissioner on the ground that selection committee was not constituted in accordance with law. The consequential appointments were also set aside on the ground that the appointment orders had not been issued by the authority competent in law. The persons who had already been appointed pursuant to the advertisement, have filed Writ Petition Nos. 1766 of 1998 and 22491 of 1998 which have been disposed of, after noticing that the Commissioner could not have proceeded to cancel the appointment already made in favour of the persons concerned, without affording an opportunity of hearing to them, particularly as the appointment orders had already been given effect to. The operative portion of the order of date passed in the aforesaid writ petition No. 1766 of 1998 reads as Under:- "So far as the question with regard to the selection committee having been constituted in accordance with rules or the appointment orders having been issued by the competent authority are concerned, it is to be observed that the District Magistrate, Mau had passed the order, constituting the selection committee which consisted of various Government Officers and petitioner allege that the work of Nazarat had already been assigned to Addl. District Magistrate by the District Magistrate. On these aspects of the matter, it is to be observed that the petitioner has not been heard and no decision in accordance with law after hearing the petitioner has been taken as yet. This Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction is not required to adjudicate such issues, at the first instance, and the issue is liable to be considered by the competent authority after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the contention raised on merits and all questions are left open to be considered by the authorities concerned. In view of the aforesaid, I am of the considered opinion that the orders impugned are violative of principles of natural justice, hence cannot be sustained and are set aside. It shall be open for the Commissioner Azamgarh Division to examine the issue of legality and validity of the petitioner's appointment afresh after affording an opportunity of hearing to him, in accordance with law. With the aforesaid observation, writ petition stands disposed of".
(2.) In view of the aforesaid observations made in the Writ Petition No. 1766 of 1998, the Divisional Commissioner has been permitted to take a fresh decision with regard to legality of the select list drawn after affording an opportunity of hearing to the affected persons. The claim of the petitioner could be considered only in case the selection proceedings are held to be valid by the Divisional Commissioner. It further appears that pursuant to an interim order granted in the present writ petition on 10.9.1998, one post of Junior Clerk had been kept vacant.
(3.) This petition, consequently, is disposed of permitting the petitioner to approach the Divisional Commissioner in respect of his grievance and in case the Divisional Commissioner comes to a conclusion that the selection proceedings have been under taken in accordance with law, the claim of petitioner shall also be examined by means of a reasoned and speaking order to be passed within a further period of 2 months after taking of decision in the matter by the Divisional Commissioner.;