Vineet Saran - (1.) ALL these writ petitions arise out of the same cause of action and hence they have been heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment. Writ Petition No. 46362 of 2004, in which pleadings have been exchanged, is being treated as the leading case.
(2.) THE brief background of these cases are that the Electricity Service Commission, Lucknow (for short 'the Commission') issued an Advertisement No. 2 of 2003 whereby applications were invited for appointment of 190 Office Assistants Grade-III in the respondent-U. P. Power Corporation Ltd. (for short 'the Corporation'). All the posts to be filled up were of backlog vacancies falling under the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribes category. In response to the said advertisement, a large number of candidates had applied and after selection, the results were declared on 22.8.2003. A select list was declared in which all the petitioners were shown as selected for appointment as Office Assistant Grade-III. Out of the selected candidates, only some could be issued appointment letters, of which just a few were permitted to join, when in the meantime a Government order was issued on 29.8.2003 whereby the State Government imposed a ban on all further appointments to be made in the State Government Corporations. Pursuant to the aforesaid Government order, the respondent-Corporation refused to issue further appointment letters and also directed not to even permit those selected candidates to join, in whose favour appointment letters had already been issued. Such selected candidates, who were not permitted to join service or had not been issued appointment letters, then filed several writ petitions with the prayer for a direction to the respondent-Corporation to permit such candidates who had been issued appointment letters to join the post ; and further to issue appointment letters in favour of such other selected candidates, and they be then permitted to join service. By judgment and order dated 23.3.2004 passed in Writ Petition No. 51448 of 2003, Chandra Shekhar v. State of U. P. and others, 2004 (3) AWC 2429, while allowing the writ petition, the order restraining the candidates from joining was quashed and keeping in view that the Government order dated 29.8.2003 (by which restraint on making fresh appointments had been imposed) had itself been withdrawn by the State Government on 15.1.2004, the Corporation was directed to issue appointment letters in favour of all the remaining selected candidates and allow them to join. Such orders were passed in other similar writ petitions also. The Corporation then challenged the aforesaid judgments by filing separate Special Appeals before the Division Bench of this Court. While dismissing the Special Appeal No. 501 of 2004, vide its judgment and order dated 4.5.2004, the Division Bench observed that in the circumstances of the case "it is not open to the Power Corporation to withhold the issue of the appointment letters to the petitioners. We fully agree with the views of the learned Judge and accordingly propose to dismiss the Special Appeal except with a slight modification that the appointment letters so issued under the directions of the learned Judge shall be subject to the decision to be taken in the inquiry and so would be the payment of salary". A few other Special Appeals filed against other identical orders passed in similar writ petitions were also dismissed in the same terms.
(3.) HOWEVER, in another Special Appeal No. 694 of 2004, wherein a similar order of the writ court was challenged another Division Bench, vide its order dated 7.6.2004, did not agree with the judgment and order dated 4.5.2004 passed in Special Appeal No. 501 of 2004 and opined that the matter required to be considered by a larger Bench of this Court and referred it to the Hon'ble Chief Justice for constitution of a larger Bench. HOWEVER, by the said order dated 7.6.2004, the Division Bench further directed that "till the decision of the larger Bench, we direct that if any persons have been appointed in pursuance of the aforesaid selection, they shall not be allowed to function till further orders. If persons selected have not been given appointment, they shall not be given appointment till the decision of the larger Bench." This order covered even those candidates who had been issued appointment letters and were permitted to join and were already working and had not even filed any writ petition. Such candidates whose working had been stopped by the said order, and also the other selected candidates, challenged the aforesaid order dated 7.6.2004 by filing Special Leave Petition 19297 of 2004, Naresh Pal and others v. U. P. Power Corporation and others, before the Apex Court. During the pendency of the said petition, an enquiry report had been submitted and consequently vide order dated 30.9.2004, the entire selection itself had been cancelled by the Corporation. The Supreme Court thus disposed of the Special Leave Petition No. 19297 of 2004 on 4.10.2004 by the following order : "The grievance of the petitioners in these special leave petitions is that although the issue relating to their appointments was not raised in the writ petition which was the subject-matter of appeal before the Division Bench, the Division Bench, by the impugned order, has stayed their working in the post to which they had been appointed. The issue has now become academic in view of the fact that the Corporation has since passed an order on the basis of an enquiry report setting aside the entire selection. The S.L.Ps. are accordingly dismissed. This, however, will not prevent the petitioners from challenging the cancellation if they are otherwise so entitled." Since by the aforesaid order, the Supreme Court had permitted the petitioners to challenge the cancellation order, these writ petitions have been filed praying for quashing the order dated 30.9.2004 passed by the Chairman/Managing Director of the Corporation and the consequential orders passed thereon in individual cases.;