SUYASH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of this writ petition, petitioners have prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 8.7.1999 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) passed by respondent No. 1, by which the select list for the post of Gram Vikas Adhikarl of Group 'C' service was cancelled.

(2.) An advertisement for direct recruitment for 36 post of Gram Vikash Adhlkari of Group 'C' service under the District Development Officer Sonebhadra. respondent No. 3 was published in August. 1998. The aforesaid posts were to be filled up in accordance with provisions of U. P. Procedure for Direct Recruitment for Group 'C' Posts (Outside the Purview of U. P. Public Service Commission) Rules. 1998. hereinafter referred to as the Rules. It was also notified that a competitive written examination for the said post will be held in each district where the vacancies have been published on one and the same date by an Independent agency appointed by the State Government for this purpose. The candidates who had passed Intermediate Science or Intermediate Agriculture Examination of U. P. Board or equivalent examination were entitled to apply for the said post. A large number of candidates applied in pursuance of the said advertisement. Rule 5 of the aforesaid Rules provides for giving marks to the candidates on their performance in the light of the written examination, at minimum qualifying examination, i.e., Intermediate Science and Intermediate Agriculture and on interview after passing out written examination. The candidates underwent a physical test and it is thereafter adding 30% marks on the basis of academic qualification a list was prepared for interview. It has been stated in the writ petition that a list of 144 candidates was prepared by the District Magistrate considering 36 vacancies, for being Interviewed by the District Selection Committee. Rule 6 of the aforesaid Rules provides for a Statutory District Selection Committee comprising of five officers details of which have been mentioned in para 15 of the writ petition. The District Magistrate in accordance with Rule 5 (4) (a) of the said Rules sent a list of 144 candidates to the District Development Officer for being interviewed by the Statutory District Selection Committee. It has been stated in paras 17, 18 and 39 of the writ petition that marks as obtained by the candidates in the written examination and the marks of basic academic qualification and their exact merit ranking prepared, prior to interview stage was kept as a top secret by the District Magistrate as the same was neither published nor declared nor it was made known to anyone either to the Chairman or other members of the District Selection Committee unless and until the interview held and marks allotted by each members are totalled and their average marks were calculated and recorded on the interview chart. Due care was taken by the District Magistrate in not disclosing the merit ranking and the marks of the successful candidates when the list was sent for interview to the District Selection Committee. All the 144 candidates were interviewed. In the meanwhile two more posts of Gram Vikas Adhikari fell vacant to be filled in by the Direct recruitment in the district upon which for two more posts the District Magistrate sent names of the candidates and they were also interviewed and thus in respect to all 38 posts a final merit select list categorywise along with a wait list was issued/published by the respondent No. 2 on 30th March, 1999, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-6 to the writ petition. Petitioners claim that their names find place in the select list and thus after completion of the selection process petitioners were to get appointment. As the matter was delayed, after repeated representation petitioners came to know that at the behest of some political leaders and high officials on account of their pressure and influence as their choice candidates and wards could not be selected, they got the impugned order dated 8.7.1999 from the Government, cancelling the select list dated 30th March, 1999 with direction for fresh interview to be held at Sonebhadra. It is this decision of the Government by which the select list which finds names of the petitioners was cancelled, made the petitioners aggrieved to come up to this Court.

(3.) Learned counsel submits that the action on the part of the respondent is clearly arbitrary, ma/a fide and has absolutely no basis either in the facts or in law. The exercise as has been undertaken by the respondent No. I has absolutely no foundation or any justification and in respect to the impugned action petitioners did not get any opportunity. Learned counsel submits that ground as has been mentioned in the impugned order that in respect to irregularity at the time of interview, on the complaints made in this respect an enquiry was got conducted by the Joint Development Commissioner. Mirzapur Region, Mirzapur. on the basis of which it was found that there has been cuttings and overwriting on the marks given by the members of the Committee and therefore, the decision is being taken, is not substantiated from the record itself. It has been pointed out that marks as has been received by the candidates in the written examination, on their academic qualifications, before the interview was made top secret. It was neither published nor released in order to make known to either the Chairman or to any member of the Committee to give favourable marks to the candidates in order to get them selected. This specific averment has been made by the petitioner in paras 16, 17 and 39 of the writ petition. In furtherance to this submission, it has been further pointed out that even enquiry report as has been submitted by the Joint Development Commissioner, Vindhyachal Region, Mirzapur, which has been annexed as Annexure-1 to the counter-affidavit do not justify the stand of the respondents, that there has been overwriting and cutting for giving undue advantage to the candidates. The charge of cutting and overwriting in the marks given by the members of the Board, to the advantage of the candidates, according to the learned counsel is not proved by the said enquiry report.