Rajiv Sharma, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Sampurnanand, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri Badrul Hasan, learned Standing Counsel, appearing on be half of the State.
(2.) THROUGH the instant writ petition, the petitioners are assailing the se lection list dated 21.2.2009/22.2.2009 contained in Annexure 1 to the writ peti tion. Further, it has been prayed that the opposite parties shall make fresh se lection following all the norms of selection rules in fair and transparent manner. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners, in pur suant to the advertisement dated 13.12.2008 published in daily newspaper Amar Ujala for filling up 21 vacancies of Class IV in the office of Executive Engineer Irrigation Khand, Pratapgarh, applied in the prescribed format. For the above purpose, the interview was held between 14.2.2009 to 20.2.2009, in which 1600 candidates including the petitioners participated in the said selec tion and interview. Submission of learned Counsel is that the Committee has not made se lection of the actual candidates and if the selection would have done in a proper manner, the petitioner would have been selected. According to him, petitioners were having higher merits and have good academic carrier and were fully qualified for selection but their claim has been ignored. Allegation regarding appointment of reserved category candidate against the General Category post has also been made. It has also been argued that a pick and choose method has been adopted to adjust the candidates in whom the opposite parties were entrusted.
(3.) REFUTING the allegations of the petitioners' Counsel, it has been submit ted by Sri Badrul Hasan, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State that the petitioners appeared in the selection process without any demur and when they were declared unsuccessful, they have made all sort of allega tions just to give colour. The appointments were made strictly in accordance with the provisions with rules and there is no irregularity. The persons, who were found eligible by the Selection Committee were given appointment. It has been argued that when the petitioners have taken a calculated chance and appeared at the interview, then, they because the result of the in terview was not palatable to them, they cannot turn round and subsequently contend that the process of interview was unfair or the selection committee was not properly constituted.;