SANJAI SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition the petitioners have sought relief of certiorari for quashing the result of selection held on 11.7.96 including the select list, and a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents not to proceed with the final touch of the selected candidate and to consider the appointment of the petitioners on the marks originally secured by them and further not to give effect to the appointment and joining of the respondents No. 7 and 8 on the posts in question.

(2.) The petitioners have come forward with the case that an advertisement dated 29.4.1996 was published by the office of District Magistrate, (Bhoolekh Section), Saharanpur for holding written examination and interview for selecting candidates to be sent for training of Lekhpal There were as many as total 49 vacancies which were likely to be changed by increase or decrease in future. Being fully eligible and qualified for selection and appointment against the aforesaid vacancy the petitioners have applied for the same. The written examination for the purpose of said selection was held on 17th June, 1996 and the candidates who had succeeded in the written examination and were called for interview by the respondents fixing date of interview on 6th July, 1996. the petitioners have succeeded in written examination and called for and appeared in the interview. The result of final selection was declared after the said written examination and interview on 11th July, 1996. The petitioners' name did not find place in the final selection list. After lapse of some times the petitioners came to know that some manipulations have been done in the answer books of the petitioners on account of which they could not succeed in the final selection. Their marks in the written examination have been reduced so as to exclude them from the final select list prepared in the aforesaid selection. It is further alleged that the respondent No. 6 was one of the member of selection committee whose two sons namely the respondents No. 7 and 8 were also candidates of the aforesaid selection. In the process of the aforesaid selection the respondent No. 7 has been finally selected and sent for training. Therefore, the entire process of selection is vitiated on account of such manipulations and bias. Accordingly the select list prepared on 11.7.96 is liable to be quashed and consequently the further action of the respondents appointing selected persons are also liable to be struck down by this Court and the petitioners are entitled for selection and to be sent for training of Lekhpal.

(3.) On behalf of the respondents two counter affidavits have been filed in the writ petition one sworn by Sri Tabeer Singh Additional Tehsildar, Saharanpur and Anr. by Om Prakash the respondent No. 6 the then District Inspector of Schools, Saharanpur. wherein in para 6 and 11 of the counter affidavit sworn by Tabeer Singh Addl.Tehsildar, Saharanpur almost complete reply has been given. Virtually same and similar reply has also been given in para 6,7,9 and 11 of the counter affidavit sworn by Om Prakash respondent No. 6. For ready reference the averments made in the aforesaid paragraphs of counter affidavit are being reproduced as under :