- (1.) Heard Mr. Sanjay Bhasin, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, for the appellant as well as Mr. Shivam Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent.
(2.) This appeal has been directed against the judgment and order dated 22.07.2010 and 15.02.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge in writ petition No. 393 (SS) of 2002. The learned Chief Standing Counsel has submitted that the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 5699 of 1994, State of U.P. And others Vs. Satish Chandra Srivastava and others held that the select list was operative only for one year excluding the period of ban and had issued a direction to make appointment in accordance with the seriatum contained in the select list for five vacant posts which were available further the learned Single Judge has also failed to appreciate that the persons whose name appeared in the select list may be considered against the respective vacancies of those year.
(3.) In view of the aforesaid submission, we have examined the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge had observed that since it is the own contention of the opposite parties that 15 posts fell vacant on account of retirement of regular incumbents, therefore, it has to be presumed that vacancies were lying on the date when the judgment and order was passed. It was further observed that the selection pertained to the year 1987-88 and the vacancies had also been shown in the year 1987-88 on account of retirement of 15 incumbents, therefore, the judgment of the apex Court is to be followed under law to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment. In view of the aforesaid observations the learned Single Judge issued direction to consider the petitioners case for appointment as against those vacancies and give appointment in accordance with the select list on the basis of merit. Further the learned Single Judge by means of another order dated 15.02.2011 has issued direction to the opposite parties to consider the petitioners case in pursuance of the judgment and order dated 22.07.2010 ignoring the age bar if any.;