SUNAIANA TRIPATHI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of the present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for issue of a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the office memorandum dated 22.10.2007 issued by the Secretary, (Appointment), Anubhag-4, U.P. Government, Civil Secretariat, Lucknow, respondent no.1, filed as Annexure 8 to the writ petition as also a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for her appointment on the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) on unfilled vacancies under General Woman Category in 2003 examination in accordance with law and to appoint the petitioner on the said post and other consequential reliefs.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present writ petition are as follows:

(3.) The petitioner being eligible and fully qualified for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) also applied. She qualified in the preliminary examination conducted by the Commission and thereafter appeared in the main written examination and was declared successful. An interview letter was issued by the Commission informing the petitioner that the interview would be held on 21st April, 2005. The petitioner appeared in the interview. The Commission declared the final result on 2nd May, 2005 and the name of the petitioner was placed at serial no. 177 in the select list. According to the petitioner she was waiting for the appointment letter to be issued in her favour but in the meantime some of the candidates challenged the result of the final selection before this Court by means of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 40058 of 2005 (Dinesh Pratap Sngh and another vs. State of U.P. and others) in which this Court directed that the candidates who were less than upper age limit on 1st July, 2003 would also be eligible to appear at 2003 recruitment, however, the candidates who have crossed upper age limit according to their categories on 1st July, 2003 would not be eligible under second proviso to Rule 10 of the Rules. The matter was taken up before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.L.P. No. (C) 22523 of 2005 later on converted in Civil Appeal No. 1867 of 2006 (Malik Mazahar Sultan vs. U.P. Public Service Commission). The Hon'ble Supreme Court vide judgment and order dated 3rd April, 2006 allowed the appeal and had held that age requirement therein would be as on 1st July, 2002 and not as on 1st July, 2004 in view of Rule-4 (m) read with Rule 10 of second proviso of the Rules. Pursuant to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Malik Mazahar Sultan reported in (2006) 9 SCC 509, the select list was revised. According to the petitioner the total number of 10 candidates including 2 candidates whose result were withheld earlier were included in the revised select list and 8 candidates from earlier select list were excluded form the select list. The name of the petitioner has been excluded from the select list after declaration of the revised select list and recommendations were sent by the Commission to the State Government for appointment of the candidates. The State Government in consultation with this Court issued appointment letters to all 347 candidates but according to the petitioner only 342 candidates have turned up and joined the post. One Tanya Singh (Roll No. 012815) resigned within two months of her joining from the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) due to her selection in I.A.S.. Another selected candidate, namely, Ritu Sharma (Roll No. 016831) did not join her post at all because she was already a P.C.S. Officer in the State of Uttar Pradesh.