SHIVNANDAN PRASAD PANDEY Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri Manish Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel representing the State-respondents.

(2.) At the outset, it has been informed by the learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioner No. 3-Ravindra Nath has passed away without leaving any heir or legal representative to pursue this writ petition or in whose favour right to sue can be said to survive. Accordingly, the writ petition in respect of petitioner No. 3-Ravindra Nath is hereby abated.

(3.) The petitioners, who are said to have been initially appointed on the post of Seasonal Assistant Wasil Baqi Nawis (hereinafter referred to as, 'AWBN') district Sultanpur, have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to challenge the decision taken by the respondents whereby their claim for regular appointment on the post of AWBN has been rejected. The petitioners had earlier filed a writ petition bearing No. 8063 (S/S) of 2011 claiming that they should be regularly appointed on the post in question. The said writ petition was finally disposed of by this Court, vide its order dated 08.11.2011 with the direction to the District Magistrate to consider the representation to be preferred by the petitioners in respect of their grievances taking into account the relevant rules and materials as also the judgment dated 26.08.2011 rendered by this Court in Writ A No. 68698 of 2006 (Jiv Kumar Tiwari Vs. State of U.P. and others).