CHANDRA PRAKASH MISRA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard counsel for the parties.

(2.) The petitioners have alleged that they were higher in the select list of the P.C.S. Examination of 1992 but they have not been given appointment, although, the persons who are below in merit in the select list have been given appointment. This fact has not been disputed by Sri A. Kumar, who has appeared on behalf of the three persons who are lower in merit and have been given appointment and are working.

(3.) Sri U. N. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that even if the petitioners in this writ petition did not file writ petition in the year 1996 when the result was declared, still they could not have been ignored. However, the Supreme Court in Ashok alias Somanna Gowda and another v. State of Karnataka and others. (1992) 1 SCC 28, has observed "learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State of Karnataka pointed out that there are many other candidates who had secured much higher marks than the appellants in case the above criteria is applied for selection. In view of the fact that the appointments under the impugned Rules were made as back as in 1987 and only the present appellants had approached the Tribunal for relief, the case of the candidates cannot be considered as they never approached for redress within reasonable time."