LAWS(ALL)-2002-3-54

SURENDRA KUMAR PANDEY Vs. STATE OF U P

Decided On March 01, 2002
SURENDRA KUMAR PANDEY Appellant
V/S
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of the writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent Nos. 1 and 3 to inform the vacancies to the respondent No. 2 for recommending the name of candidates from the watting list which is said to be maintained .

(2.) The facts as stated in the writ petition are that for filling up different posts in the State of U. P. through the Combined State Upper Subordinate Examination, 1999, an advertisement was published in the daily newspaper dated 1.1.1999. The petitioners filled their forms for appearing in the said examination. In the final result so declared, petitioner No. 2 was finally selected and was allotted the post of Assistant Director (Industry) but petitioner No. 1 was not selected. It is stated in paragraph 11 of the writ petition that the State Government has issued two Government orders dated 29.8.1992 and 31.1.1994 for declaration of result, preparation of the waiting list and the life span of the waiting list. According to the petitioners, in accordance with the Government orders dated 29.8.1992 and 31.1.1994, the vacancies are liable to be informed by the respective departments within one year of the result to the respondent No. 2 (U. P. Public Service Commission) about the posts on which the candidates have not turned up to join their respective assignments, upon which respondent No. 2 has to send recommendations of the candidates from the waiting list. As this exercise was not done by the respondent, the petitioners have come to this Court seeking a direction to the respondents in this regard to send names from the waiting list and reshuffle the appointments.

(3.) We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel, who represents the respondent Nos. 1 and 3 and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 2 and have also examined the facts as stated in the writ petition and in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents.