ASHOK KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioners, who had submitted applications for being considered for appointment on the post of Livestock Extension Officer pursuant to the advertisement dated 29th December, 2004 issued by the Joint Director (Administration), Animal Husbandry, U.P. Lucknow, have filed this petition for quashing the order dated 5th January, 2009 issued by the Director, Department of Animal Husbandry in so far as it excludes the Petitioners from participation in the written examination to be held at the end of two years training. The Petitioners have also sought the quashing of the report dated 10th October, 2008 submitted" by the Additional Director (Godhan Vikas), Animal Husbandry Department in so far as it relates to the Petitioners. A further direction has been sought that the Respondents should permit the Petitioners to appear at the written examination to be held at the end of two years training.

(2.) The advertisement provided that the application forms for the 489 posts of Livestock Extension Officer could be submitted by 17th January, 2005 and after selection but before appointment on the said post, two years' training would be imparted. A perusal of the advertisement also shows that the posts of Livestock Extension Officer were allocated Region-wise; that the Deputy Director, Animal Husbandry of the concerned Region was the Appointing Authority; that the post was a Group 'C post falling outside the purview of the U.P. Public Service Commission and that the number of vacancies could increase or decrease.

(3.) The process of selection, including the holding of the written examination under the provisions of the U.P. Animal Husbandry Department of Livestock Extension and Poultry Development Service Rules, 2002 notified on 16th July, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Animal Husbandry Rules') was assailed by certain applicants in various writ petitions on the ground that the selection could have been done only in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the provisions of "Uttar Pradesh Procedure for Direct Recruitment for Group 'C Post (Outside the Purview of the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission), Rules, 2002" (hereinafter referred to as the 'Public Service Commission 2002 Rules') as subsequently amended by "The Uttar Pradesh Procedure for Direct Recruitment for Group "C' Posts (Outside the Purview of the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission) (First Amendment) Rules, 2003. The writ petitions were allowed and the written examination held on 11th September, 2005 was cancelled for the reason that the selection could have been made only in accordance with the provisions of Public Service Commission 2002 Rules. The relevant portion of the judgment rendered by the Court on 21st March, 2006 in Satish Kumar Yadav and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Anr., 2006 3 ESC 1792 is as follows: