VINAY KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners in the instant petition were selected for appointment to the post of Assistant Accountant and Assistant Cashier respectively in Treasury Office, Sant Kabir Nagar. The selection was held on the basis of examination conducted on 13.12.1998 for filling up the various vacancies of Group 'C' posts advertised on August 18, 1998, in Daily Newspaper 'Rashtriya Sahara', it would transpire that vide Government Order No. 5-3-3287/10-97-93 (a)/97 dated 31.3.1998 and G.O. No. 5-3-3233/10-97/34-95 dated 30.3.1998, various posts were created for the newly established Treasury in Sant Kabir Nagar. The posts so created included four posts of Assistant Accountant, two posts of Assistant Cashier and one post of Junior Clerk falling in Group 'C' which were advertised in August, 1998. Written examination was held as stated supra on 13.12.1998. A Selection Committee was constituted by the District Magistrate. Sant Kabir Nagar under the Chairmanship of Additional District Magistrate but on account of the transfer/leave of the Addl. District Magistrate, another selection committee came to be constituted vide order dated 25.2.1999 of the District Magistrate under the Chairmanship of Senior Treasury Officer, Sant Kabir Nagar. In the said Selection Committee members belonging to S.C. and O.B.C. were included. Interview was held by the Selection Committee on 6.3.1999 and on the basis of marks obtained in the interview and the written examination, a merit list was prepared according to which the petitioner--Vinai Kumar Srivastava and three others, namely, Sri Yogendra Kumar. Mast Ram and Smt. Eram Mehfooz were selected for the posts of Assistant Accountant whereas the petitioner Satya Prakash and one J. B. Singh were selected for the post of Assistant Cashier while one Sri A. P. Singh was selected for the post of Junior Clerk. Certain candidates were kept in the waiting list. Admittedly, the select-list was prepared after following indexing procedure and after adding marks obtained by the candidates in the interview. The list was accorded approval by the District Magistrate vide his order dated 12.3.1999.

(2.) The Commissioner Basti Division Basti by his letter dated 21.3.1999 however, seems to have reported to the State Government about irregularities in the Selection/ Interview. The State Government vide orders dated 19.4.1999 and 18.6.1999 took a decision to get the already held interview cancelled and hold another interview in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the Uttar Pradesh Procedure for Direct Recruitment for Group 'C' posts (Outside the Purview of the U. P. Public Service Commission) Rules, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as the '1998 Rules'). The Divisional Commissioner passed a consequential order dated July 5, 1999, asking the District Magistrate, Sant Kabir Nagar to ensure compliance with the order passed by the State Government in respect of the selection in question. These orders are the subject-matter of challenge in this petition.

(3.) Sri Tarun Verma began his arguments with the submission that the Selection Committee was properly constituted and the orders impugned herein are tainted with arbitrariness and are, therefore, liable to be quashed. The standing counsel, in opposition, tried to prop up the impugned orders on the premises that the constitution of the Selection Committee under the Chairmanship of Senior Treasury Officer was not in accordance with law and hence, no exception can be taken to the impugned orders. A perusal of the impugned order dated 19.4.1999 (Annexure-CA 1 to the counter-affidavit) would be eloquent of the fact that the already held interview was cancelled due to the reason that the Selection Committee headed by an officer other than the Ziladhikari/appointing authority, was not in accord with 1998 Rules. In the counter-affidavit, it has been stated in para 3(G) that the selection was cancelled on the ground that the Selection Committee "was not headed by the appointing authority and as such, the constitution of the Selection Committee under the Chairmanship of Senior Treasury Officer was held to be in accordance with law." It appears that due to typographical error, it has been mentioned that the "selection committee under the Chairmanship of Senior Treasury Officer was held to be in accordance with law." The stand intended, as submitted by the learned standing counsel, is that the Selection Committee should have been constituted under the Chairmanship of the District Magistrate who according to the learned standing counsel happens to be the 'appointing authority'. Rule 6 of the U. P. Procedure for Direct Recruitment for Group 'C' Post (Outside the Purview of the U. P. Public Service Commission) Rules, 1998, which envisages constitution of the Selection Committee, may be excerpted below :