RAKESH TIWARI,J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents and perused the record.
(2.) PETITIONERS challenge the selection made for the post of Pharmacist vide advertisement dated 12.11.2007 pursuant to the Government Order dated 11.10.2007. Learned counsel for the parties made a statement that a similar controversy came up for consideration before this Court in Writ Petition No. 7699 (SS) of 2007, Sunil Kumar Rai and others v. State of U.P. and others, decided on 23.5.2008 and in Writ Petition No. 27798 of 2009, N.K. Upadhayay and others v. State of U.P. and others, whereby this Court has disposed of the aforesaid Writ Petitions with certain conditions.
(3.) IT appears that against the judgment dated 23.5.2009 number of special appeals were filed before Lucknow Bench of this Court. Leading number of the appeal bearing Special Appeal No. 377 of 2008, Prem Chandra and others v. State of U. P. and others, was disposed of along with thejconnected special appeals by the Division Bench of this Court on 4.5.2009 with certain directions appended as Annexure 4 to the writ petition. The relevant portion of the order and judgment dated 4.5.2009 is as under: "Rule 15(2) whether can be interpreted in two ways or not is not relevant for the present controversy as the interpretation given by the State Government makes it clear that under the impression that the Rules so provide, all selections have been made till date and, therefore, the appellants who are before this Court are also entitled to be considered in the same manner in which the cases of other similarly situated persons have been considered. Any other order passed by this Court would not only defeat their right of appointment for no fault of theirs, but would also deprive them of their right of consideration for appointment by their total exclusion from the zone of consideration, by interpretation of the rule, on both the occasions, against their interest. A peculiar and a piquant situation has arisen in the instant case, where it, is not the case, that an aspirant of the higher post in service on becoming eligible for promotion or a person seeking direct appointment on the date when he is to be considered for such a promotion or appointment, seeks to, interpret the rule of recruitment in a particular manner, looking to the past practice, to his advantage, but here is a case, where the appellants were excluded from consideration of their appointment at the relevant time earlier, by interpreting the rule to their disadvantage, and were made to believe that likewise their candidature shall be considered later on, for which various circulars and instructions were also issued by the State Government, but when their turn came for getting employment, they are again being put out of consideration, by interpreting the rule in a different manner. Injustice thus, caused to them, in the hands of the State Government, therefore, requires to be corrected. We also take notice of the fact that under the present advertisement, 766 vacancies have been notified, therefore, the present appellants, who are much less in number, can also be considered for appointment, leaving sizeable vacancies for the rest of the candidates. We, therefore, dispose of these special appeals with the direction that the appellants' cases shall be considered in accordance with the pre-existing practice by considering their appointment on the basis of their merit taking their batches into consideration as was being done earlier but this process would be available only for the appellants and they would be accommodated if they are otherwise found eligible and the remaining vacancies would be filled in by following Rule 15(2) strictly as directed by the learned Single Judge. At this juncture, Dr. L.P. Misra placed before the Court U.P. Lok Seva (Bharti Ke Liye Aayu Seema Ka Shithilikaran) Niyamawali, 1992, in support of his submission that the appellants are entitled to be given the age relaxation. We without entering into this question in detail, do observe that the age relaxation be given to the appellants as per rules, if they have crossed the age limit for the reason that right from the year 1998, no selection has been made and in certain cases, age relaxation has been granted. The selection process be completed within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. All the special appeals are disposed of accordingly." ;