- (1.) Ref: Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application No.398375 of 2016 & Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application No.398382 of 2016 For the reasons stated in affidavits filed in support of both the applications, as the same constitute sufficient causes for condoning the delay in filing Review Application, both the Delay Condonation Applications are allowed. Review Applications are treated to have been filed well within time.
(2.) Ref: Civil Misc. Review Application No.398372 of 2016 & Civil Misc. Review Application No.398380 of 2016 Civil Misc. Review Applications have been filed for reviewing impugned judgement and order dated 08.07.2016 passed in Special Appeal (D) No. 1225 of 2010 (Anil Kumar Tripathi vs. State of U.P. and others) as well as in Special Appeal (D) No. 20 of 2011 (Dinesh Kumar Sachan and another vs. State of U.P. and others) and further to set aside the impugned judgement and order dated 13.03.2008 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.57881/2007 as well as Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.60598/2007 and allow the review application, the appeal and the writ petition and pass any further order as this Court deems fit in the facts of the case.
(3.) Brief background of the litigation in question is that an advertisement was issued by the judgeship of Hamirpur on 15.07.2006 to fill up 11 vacancies of Class IV employees. The said advertisement was followed by another advertisement dated 24.03.2003 wherein 15 vacancies of class IV employees including the earlier 11 vacancies were advertised and it was provided that the candidates, who have applied in pursuance of the earlier advertisement a select list of 34 candidates, was prepared and declared on 13.06.2003 which included the names of the appellant-applicant who were between serial nos.16 to 20. After the preparation and announcement of the said select list, by an order dated 26.06.2003, 7 class IV employees of the judgeship were promoted to class III posts and as such seven more vacancies became available resulting in total vacancies available is 22. Accordingly, after the 15 vacancies as advertised were duly filled up seven candidates were given substantive appointment as class IV employees by orders dated 27.06.2003 and 28.06.2003. Two of the employees so appointed over and above 15 vacancies advertised namely Surendra Kumar Kushwaha and Anil Kumar Tripathi were transferred to Mahoba judgeship under the administrative orders of the High Court. It appears that the transfer of Shri Surendra Kumar Kushwaha to Mahoba was made on the vacancy caused by the promotion of one Amresh Kumar Shukla as class III employee in the judgeship of Mahoba. However, Amresh Kumar Shukla was reverted to the class IV post and as such Surendra Kumar Kushwaha was not allowed to work after 01.04.2005. Therefore, Surendra Kumar Kushwaha preferred Writ Petition No.43323 of 2005 (Surendra Kumar Kushwaha vs. State of U.P. and others). The said Writ Petition was finally dismissed by the High Curt vide judgement and order dated 02.07.2007 and it was held that the appointments of the 7 persons including Surendra Kumar Kushwaha, who were appointed in excess of the 15 vacancies advertised in the judgeship of Hamirpur, were illegal and violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The Special Appeal No.1018 of 2007 of Surendra Kumar Kushwaha was also dismissed vide judgement and order dated 16.08.2007. Thus, the judgement and order of the learned Single Judge attained finality. On the basis of the said judgement and order dated 02.07.2007 rendered in the petition of Surendra Kumar Kushwaha, show cause notices were issued to the appellant-applicant and ultimately vide impugned order dated 12.09.2007, District Judge, Hamirpur decided to terminate their services as they were held to be appointed in excess of the vacancies notified.;