RAKESH TIWARI, J. - (1.) HEARD Sir Faujdar Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner-applicant and perused the record.
(2.) BY means of the aforesaid Modification Application the applicant has prayed for issuance of appropriate direction on the basis of judgement dated 17.4.2006 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 68196 of 2005 and to pass any such other and further interim order which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case. The writ petition was filed for the following relief: (i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 20/22.9.2005 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) passed by respondent No. 1. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus comanding the respondents to consider the petitioner's afresh for appointment in U.P. Power Corporation at Allahabad similar to the appointment of Sri Pramod Kumar Srivastava. (iii) Any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the present case.
(3.) NO counter affidavit was filed by the Respondents-U.P. Power Corporation. Even after stop order dated 27.10.2005 opportunity was granted by the Court on 16.1.2006 and 14.2.2006 for filing counter affidavit but even then that was not filed and as such the Court after noticing the facts averred in the writ petition decided the writ petition in terms of the judgment rendered in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 23139 of 1997, Pramod Kumar Srivastava v. State of UP. and others. The relevant portion of the judgment dated 17.4.2006 is as under: "The case was then listed on 22.3.2006. When the case was taken up in the revised list it was passed over on the engagement slip of Sri R.D. Khare, learned counsel for the respondents, and was ordered to be put up after lunch recess. The case was taken up after lunch recess and learned counsel for the parties were heard. Since no counter affidavit has been filed despite repeated grant of time to file the same, in the circumstances, the averments made in the writ petition are taken to be correct. In my opinion, there can be no discrimination amongst similarly situated persons, hence the petitioner also could not have been discriminated with other similarly situated employees. In the circumstances, the writ petition is decided in terms of the judgment rendered in Writ Petition No. 23139 of 1997, Pramod Kumar Srivastava v. State of U.P. and others. No order as to costs." ;