NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN,J - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the appellant.
(2.) THE petitioner/appellant has preferred this intra Court appeal challenging order dated 02.02.2012 passed by the Single Bench whereby his writ petition, against impugned order dated 16.12.2011 dismissing his representation, has been dismissed. The petitioner filed a writ petition before the Single Bench, contending therein that in pursuance of Advertisement dated 09.09.2008, he applied for the post of Junior Accountant/Tehsil Revenue Accountant. During the process of selection and before declaration of result, an amendment was made in the Rules vide Notification dated 05.07.2011, whereby a relaxation of 5% marks was given to the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates in qualifying marks in the selection. The appellant preferred S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15520/2011, which was disposed off on the basis of judgment delivered in the case of Mukesh Kumar Meena. The appellant, thereafter, filed a representation, which was rejected by the respondents vide order dated 16.12.2011. Thereafter, he preferred S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 675/2011, which was dismissed by the Single Bench vide order dated 02.02.2012. Thereafter, the appellant has preferred this intra Court appeal. Submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that rule was amended vide Notification dated 05.07.2011, during the selection process and result had not been declared, therefore, the appellant was entitled for relaxation of 5% marks in qualifying marks in the selection, but the respondents committed an illegality in rejecting his representation. He further submitted that the appellant was entitled to the benefit of amended rule and in support of his submission, he referred judgment delivered by the Apex Court in the case of Deepak Agarwal and Another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, (2011) 6 SCC 725. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant and examined the order passed by the single Bench and other documents available on record. There is no dispute that Advertisement was issued and selection process started on 09.09.008. Amendment in the rule was made vide Notification dated 05.07.2011. There is no dispute that rule was not amended with retrospective effect. The result was declared subsequently. Learned Single Judge rejected submission of learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that since rule was not amended with retrospective effect, therefore, the appellant cannot get any benefit in the present selection process, which started in the year 2008.
(3.) THE judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Deepak Agarwal and Another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others(supra) was also considered by the Single Bench and the same was found to be distinguishable and not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. We have again examined the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court and we find that learned Single Judge was right in observing that the said judgment is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. In our view, learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition of the appellant. The reasons assigned by the learned Single Bench are absolutely legal and justified. We find no merit in any of the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant. The appeal, being devoid of any merit, is, accordingly, dismissed in limine. Stay Application No. 5370/2012 as well as I.A. No. 11028/2012 also stand dismissed.;