Rakesh Tiwari - (1.) HEARD Sri D. K. Pandey, Sri Ajay Kumar Srivastava appearing on behalf of respondent No. 5, learned standing counsel on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and perused the record.
(2.) NO counter-affidavit has been filed by Sri A. K. Srivastava, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent NO. 5. The petitioner has challenged the validity and correctness of the impugned order dated 15.12.2007, passed by the District Magistrate, Azamgarh directing the respondents to appoint respondent No. 5 as Aganbari Karyakatri in the village Utargawan, district Azamgarh. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the selection on the post of Aganbari Karyakatri was made in the year 2006 and only one candidate was selected in that selection. The selected candidate resigned from the service and, therefore, the selection is exhausted. Accordingly, vacancy was re-advertised on 30.10.2007 but the respondents instead of making fresh selection have appointed respondent No. 5 who was at serial No. 2 in the earlier select list in the selection held in 2006 for the purpose of Aganbari Karyakatri.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that once the list of select candidates is exhausted after selection was made and the candidate at serial No. 1 joined the post, no selection from the said list stood exhausted and no other candidate from the said list can be appointed in fresh selections for which fresh selection proceedings are to be initiated. No counter-affidavit has been filed by the State as well as respondent No. 5.;