Tarun Agarwala, J. - (1.) IT transpires that applications were invited for appointment on the post of Junior Clerk. The petitioner's name was sponsored by the Employment Exchange. The petitioner appeared in the written test and was declared successful, and thereafter, was called for the interview. A select list was published, which included the name of the petitioner, and the respondents thereafter, issued an appointment letter dated 5th of November, 1997. The petitioner joined the services as a Junior Clerk on 06.11.1997 and discharged his duty till 12th of November, 1997, on which date, the services of the petitioner was terminated on the ground that the State Government has issued an order dated 3rd of November, 1997 imposing a ban on all appointments in the State of U.P., and therefore, the petitioner could not be appointed pursuant to the ban order issued by the State Government. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the said order, filed a Writ Petition No. 38644 of 1997. The writ Court, by a judgment dated 17th February, 2003, quashed the order of termination and directed the respondents to pass a fresh order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Based on the said direction, the respondents passed an order dated 16th September, 2003, rejecting the representation of the petitioner, holding that it was not possible to take back the petitioner in service again. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the said order, filed the present writ petition, and during the pendency of the writ petition, an interim order was issued directing the authorities to pass a reasoned and speaking order, since the impugned order dated 16th September, 2003 did not contain any reason. Based on the interim order of the Court, the respondents passed an order dated 23rd June, 2005 rejecting the claim of the petitioner, holding that the petitioner could not be appointed since a ban was imposed by the State Government by an order dated 3rd of November, 1997.
(2.) IN the meanwhile, the respondents issued an advertisement on 6th of August 2002 and again on 9th of August, 2007, inviting applications for the post of Junior Clerk. These advertisements were stayed by an interim order of the Court. After hearing Shri R.P. Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, this Court is of the opinion that the action taken by the respondents cannot be sustained and the impugned orders issued by the authorities from time to time was liable to be quashed. In the first place, the order of the State Government dated 3rd November, 2007 imposing a ban on all appointments appears to be an arbitrary exercise of power by the State Government. No reasons whatsoever has been disclosed in the said order as to why such a drastic decision had been taken by the State Government imposing a ban on all appointments in the State of U.P.. Appointments on a public post are made pursuant to the provisions indicated in the statute and the procedures evolved under the said statute. The exercise of filling up of posts cannot be stopped arbitrarily on the whims and fancies of the State Government, for oblique purposes. In the present case, the Court finds that the exercise for filling up the vacancies was initiated much prior to the issuance of the Government Order of 3rd November, 1997, and only the ministerial task of issuance of the appointment letter by the competent authority was left and which had been issued by the competent authority on 5th of November, 1997.
(3.) IN my opinion, assuming that the State Government had the power to impose a ban on all the appointments, such imposition of a ban could only be made prospectively and would not apply where the selection process had already been initiated and was nearing completion. Quite apart from the aforesaid, it has come on record that the respondents had issued an advertisement on 6th of August, 2002, and again, on 9th of August, 2007, inviting applications for filling up the post of Junior Clerks. The issuance of the advertisement necessarily implies that the State Government has lifted the ban. Once the ban is lifted, the selection made in the year 1997 was required to be carried out.;