- (1.) J. C. S. Rawat, J. 1. This special appeal, under Rule 5 Chapter VIII of the High Court Rules, has been filed against the judgment and order dated 13-08-2004 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 1706 of 2001 (S/s), Hem Raj Singh Vs. H. N. B. Garhwal University and others, whereby the learned Single Judge has allowed the petition and directed the University to coordinate to implement the policy de cision laid down in G. O. dated 25-05-1999 and to decide the question of giv ing employment to the petitioner in ac cordance with the rules.
(2.) A writ petition bearing No. 1706/ 2001 (S/s) was filed before the learned Single Judge by the writ petitioner-Hem Raj Singh (Now 'respondent' in the present special appeal) for the following reliefs : (i) To issue a writ of mandamus di recting the respondent no. 1 to grant the appointment to the pe titioner for the post of class III employees for he possess the req uisite qualification. (ii) To issue a writ of mandamus di recting the respondent no. 1 to grant seniority to the petitioner from the date of initial appoint ment viz-a-viz other candidates. (iii) To issue any other writ, order or direction which may be deemed fit and proper in the circum stances of the case. (iv) To award cost of this writ peti tion to the petitioner. A piece of land situated at Naithana Chauras has been acquired from the petitioner's father for the es tablishment of Hemwati Nandan Bahuguna, Garhwal University (herein after referred as 'university' ). Notifications were issued by the Government under the provisions of the Land Acqui sition Act. Pursuant to the acquisition proceedings, the Government took pos session of the said land. The State of U. P formulated a policy vide Govern ment Order dated 25-05-1999 which provides that in case of land required for public purposes, the persons to be dis placed by reason of acquisition of their land would be considered on preference basis for giving appointment to at least one member of such family. The peti tioner has alleged that the University was entrusted the list prepared on 29-05-1998 of such eligible candidates for con sideration for appointment. The name of the petitioner in the list figured at serial no. 67. The name of the petitioner was however stuck of from the list of dis placed persons when the final fist was sent by S. D. M. on 31-07-1999 to the then District Magistrate for being for warded to the University for appoint ment. The petitioner's father made rep resentations dated 20-08-1999 and 21- 08-1999 that his son may be appointed in the University. On the representations, the University made endorsement to the effect that the permission had to be sought from the District Magistrate / State of U. P. The interview for appoint ment was conducted on 27-12-1999 but the petitioner was not invited by the University although name of a person whose land was not acquired figured at serial no. 47 and further two members of one family whose names figured at serial nos. 40 and 49 have been inter viewed. Feeling aggrieved by this, the petitioner has filed the writ petition be fore the Single Judge. The appellants (University) had filed the counter affidavit in which it has been alleged that there was no commit ment to provide appointment to every displaced person or member of his fam ily; that the name of only 92 persons in view of their eligibility, qualification and economic conditions were forwarded by the government for appointment by the University; that the name of the peti tioner was never included in the said list of 92 eligible persons; that the list which has been filed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition is not one which was sent by the District Magistrate to the State Govern ment and in the one which the State Government sent to the University by let ter dated 25-05-1999; that the Univer sity made endorsement on the represen tation of the petitioner that the petitioner may approach the District Magistrate for the purposes of inclusion of his name in the list as the University was not the au thority to prepare the list of the eligible candidates and that considering the vari ous factors including the economic condition of the candidate and other qualifications the petitioner is not entitled for appointment. In the rejoinder affidavit, the petitioner has averred that after a detailed inquiry on 29-05-1998 the S. D. M. , Kirtinagar prepared a list of 91 candidates and sent it to the Registrar, H. N. B. Garhwal University and in this list his name shown at serial no. 67. The revenue officials thereafter prepared a new list of 92 candidates in the month of August, 1998 and in the said list the name of 13 persons at serial no. 21, 26, 29, 36, 39, 57, 64, 67, 70, 73, 80, 82 and 83 who were in the list prepared on 29-05-1998 have been deleted for the reasons best known to the revenue offi cials; that the list prepared in the month of August 1998 was never published and that the District Magistrate, Tehri Garhwal after enquiry wrote a letter to the Vice Chancellor on 03-01-2002 re questing him to provide job to the peti tioner, who being within the zone of consideration of displaced person is en titled for a job in the University.
(3.) AFTER hearing the parties, the learned Single Judge has allowed the petition vide impugned order dated 13-08-2004 and directed the University to coordinate to implement the policy decision and to decide the question of giv ing employment to the petitioner in ac cordance with the rules within a period of three months from the date of pres entation of the certified copy of the or der. Feeling aggrieved by the said or der, the present special appeal has been preferred by the appellants- University.;