ASHISH PANDEY Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard, Shri Rakesh Kumar Singh and Shri Pramendra Kumar Singh, learned counsels for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for respondents no.1 and 2, Shri Gaurav Mehrotra, learned counsel for respondent no.3 and Shri Sameer Kalia, learned counsel appearing for respondents no.6, 8, 9 and 10. Shri Prafulla Tiwari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of some of the private respondents submitted that he has instructions not to appear and argue on their behalf.

(2.) By means of the instant writ petition, the petitioners have approached this Court challenging the select list dtd. 17/5/2016 issued by the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Services Selection Commission (here-in-after referred as UPSSSC) / opposite party no.3, which has been issued after selection in pursuance of the advertisement no.14/15 dtd. 3/9/2015. A further prayer has been made for a direction to the opposite party no.3 for re-selection for the post of X-Ray Technician in accordance with law.

(3.) The brief facts of the case, as culled out from the pleadings on record, are that the opposite party no.3 issued the advertisement no.14/15 on 3/9/2015 for various posts including the post of X-Ray Technician under the Director, Medical and Health, U.P., Lucknow. The total number of posts advertised were 403. The mode of selection on the post of X-Ray Technician was interview. It was also provided in the advertisement that the marks of the interview would be fixed with the approval of the State Government in accordance with the notification dtd. 11/5/2015, by which the Uttar Pradesh Group-C Direct recruitment (Mode and Procedure) Rules-2015 (here-in-after referred as Rules of 2015) were notified. In pursuance thereof the selection has been held after holding interview, in which the petitioners had also participated, however they could not get the place in select list issued by the UPSSSC, which is impugned in the present writ petition.