BHAIRAB DUTT JOSHI Vs. ADDITIONAL CHIEF REVENUE COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this Writ Petition, moved under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought mandamus directing the respondents to issue appointment letter in favour of the petitioner against a Class IV post as per the alleged select list prepared by the Selection Committee on 2906 -1994.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case, as narrated in the writ petition, are that recruitment to Group -D posts are made according to J.P. Group -D Employees Service Rules, 1985. Rule 16 of said Rules requires constitution of Selection Committee and Rule 19 pertains to the procedure of recruitment, According to the petitioner, District Magistrate, Tehri, constituted a Committee under Rule 16 for filling the vacancies in Group -d in the office of the Sub -Divisional Magistrate, Narendra Nagar and Special Land Acquisition Officer, Tehri Garhwal at Narendra Nagar. It is alleged that petitioner's name found place at serial no. 6 of the select list dated 29 -06 -994 (copy Annexure 1) but he was not given the appointment while the person at serial no. 8 of me select 'list has been offered the same. It is further alleged that petitioner was a physically handicapped person (copy of Certificate at Annexure - 2 to the Writ Petition) when the petitioner did not get the appointment even after making representation, he moved the present petition before Allahabad High Court In the year 1995. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents, denying if any select list dated 29 -06 -1994 was prepared. It is stated in the counter affidavit that whatever appointments have been made these were under Rule 23 (2) and (3) of the U.P. Group -D Employees Service Rules, 1985.

(3.) I heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.