RAJESH SHARMA Vs. ADVOCATE GENERAL U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE special appeals raising common questions of law and facts arise out of the judgment and order dated 20th August, 2001 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 17432 of 1999, Rajesh Sharma v. Advocate General U.P. and others, whereby he having partly allowed the writ petition has set aside the selection of Shri K.K. Shastri, Respondent No. 2 to the writ petition, on the post of Routine Grade Clerk/Typist in the State Law Officers Establishment and has given a direction that the vacancy caused as a consequence of setting aside selection of Shri K.K. Shastri be filled from the next candidate in the merit list and if the next in the merit list is not available or does not choose to take appointment then from next to next in the merit list.

(2.) SKELETON facts necessary to get hang of the real controversy as also to appreciate the discussions hereinafter are that there were certain vacancies of Routine Grade Clerks/typists in the State Law Officers Establishment against which certain appointment were made by the Advocate General on ad hoc basis by way of stop gap arrangement. This arrangement was questioned in Writ Petition No. 42506 of 1993, Shiv Pratap and another v. State of U.P. and others, on the grounds of mala fide, bias and arbitrariness praying, in substance, for issuance of directions to the respondents to the writ petition to remove the ad hoc appointees and fill up the vacancies by permanent appointments in accordance with law. This Court while finally disposing of that writ petition rejected the relief of removal of ad hoc appointees holding it as stop gap arrangement to cope with the pressure of work in Advocate General Office but directed regular appointments to be made after sanction of the strength of the establishment by the State Government in the light of suggestions made by the Advocate General after giving equal opportunities to all concerned. It appears that subsequent to the disposal of Writ Petition No. 42506 of 1993, in the year 1996 some steps for selection and appointment to fill up the vacancies in State Law Officers Establishment were initiated and call letters for interview were issued to certain candidates which came up in controversy again before this Court in Writ Petition No. 37054 of 1996, Narain Dutt Tripathi v. State of U.P. and others. The Advocate General, Uttar Pradesh in the aforesaid writ petition gave an undertaking to follow the procedure prescribed under law. In view of the said undertaking of the Advocate General, U.P. the writ petition was disposed of with certain directions as to the manner of advertisement of vacancies ignoring the call letters already issued. It was also made clear by this Court in the said writ petition that the candidates to whom call letters had been issued could have right to make applications, if they so choose, in response to the advertisement.

(3.) THE respondents contested the writ petition by filing their counter -affidavits denying allegations of mala fide, foul play discrimination and arbitrariness and claiming fair selection of candidates on merits in accordance with law and the rules. The learned Single Judge, however, on appraisal of materials before him found the selection of Shri K.K. Shastri illegal and violative of Article 16 of the Constitution and passed the impugned judgment and order. The petitioner dissatisfied from the direction of the learned Single Judge to fill up the vacancy created as a consequence of setting aside the appointment of Shri Shastri from candidate next in merit and the respondents aggrieved from the finding of Shri Shastri's appointment being declared illegal and violative of Article 16 of the Constitution have come up in these special appeals.