MANISH MATHUR,J. - (1.) Heard Sri Devendra Pratap Upadhyay, learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel appearing on behalf of opposite parties.
(2.) The petition has been filed against order dated 20.06.2008 rejecting petitioner's representation for appointment on the post of Stenographer in pursuance of advertisement dated 07.08.1998. A further prayer for a direction to opposite parties to complete the selection process initiated in pursuance of the said advertisement has also been made and for not filling up the posts through redeployment. On 15.02.2019, after hearing parties concerned, the following order has been passed:- "This petition has been filed seeking a writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite parties to complete the selection process initiated in pursuance of the advertisement dated 07.08.1998. A writ in the nature of Certiorari has also been sought for quashing the order dated 20.06.2008 whereby representation made by the petitioner has been rejected and it has been stated that the advertisement itself dated 07.08.1998 and the written examination in pursuance thereof held on 13.12.1998 stand cancelled. However, the said impugned order dated 20.06.2008 indicates that certain appointments were to be made on the basis of redeployment whereas the advertisement dated 07.08.1998 does not indicate any such thing and on the contrary it pertains to fresh direct recruitment. Learned counsel for the petitioner has indicated appointment order dated 23.03.1999 whereby one Suman Gautam is said to have been appointed in pursuance of the said advertisement. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of the Court to Annexure-4 to the writ petition, which, as per his submission, is the select list prepared as a consequence of the said advertisement in which name of Smt. Suman Gautam finds place at serial no.4 whereas name of the petitioner finds place at serial no.1. It is further submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that once a person from the said select list has been granted appointment, then it is arbitrary on part of the opposite parties to have ignored the claim of petitioner. The learned State Counsel is directed to seek instruction in the matter pertaining to such anomalies as indicated above and to produce the record pertaining to the aforesaid selections. It has also been submitted that certain writ petitions were filed in this Court challenging the said selection, in which interim orders were passed but subsequently the said writ petitions were, apparently, dismissed. The learned Standing Counsel is also directed to obtain instruction as to whether interim order in any of such writ petition is continuing till date or not. List this case on 06.03.2019 for production of the record, as prayed"
(3.) Subsequently upon perusal of records produced by opposite parties, order dated 06.03.2019 as passed, is as follows:- "By means of the order dated 15.02.2019 the learned standing counsel had been directed to obtain instructions as to whether the selection process initiated in pursuance of the advertisement dated 07.08.1998 was canceled or not. He had also been directed to obtain instructions as to whether Smt. Suman Gautam had been appointed in pursuance of the said advertisement or not. A third direction had been given to him to seek instructions as to whether certain writ petitions that had been filed challenging the said selection were pending or not. Today the original record pertaining to the aforesaid selection has been produced whereby it is apparent that the selection process initiated by means of the advertisement dated 07.08.1998 was never canceled by any order prior to such indication in the order dated 01.06.2008. Furthermore the record reveals the final merit list annexed as Annexure No.4 to be present in the record in original. With regard to the third query of the Court, the learned standing counsel has submitted that two of the writ petitions namely 5332 (S/S) of 1998 and 5683 (S/S) of 1998 challenging the selection process were dismissed in the year 2005 and 2014 respectively. The fact of Smt. Suman Gautam having been appointed in pursuance of the aforesaid advertisement is also apparent from her appointment letter dated 23.03.1999 which is on record. List this case on 13.03.2019 on which the records need not be produced. " ;