SHIV PUJAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these petitions having issues of common interest are taken-up together for decision.

(2.) All the petitioners have prayed for a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to appoint them in Group 'D' services on the posts of Peon and Tracer in accordance with their options. The Government orders (Annexures-1 and 2) whereby restrictions on fresh appointments was imposed, are sought to be quashed by virtue of a writ of certiorari and similarly the order (Annexure-3) issued by the Consolidation Commissioner has also been sought to be annulled.

(3.) The petitioners applied for the posts of Peon and Tracer and in the selection process, they appeared for interview before the Selection Board. Whereas the petitioners No. 1 to 4 of Writ Petition No. 5407 (SS) of 2001, petitioners No. 1 and 2 of Writ Petition No. 153 (SS) of 2002 and the sole petitioner of Writ Petition No. 154 (SS) of 2002 opted for the post of Tracer, the remaining petitioners applied for their appointment on the post of Peon. The selection process was complete in the year 1997 itself but pronouncement of the result was held-up without any rhyme and reason. However, in some cases of the same selection exercise, result was declared and some appointments were made--of course, under orders of the High Court. Some of the petitioners earlier filed Writ Petition No. 5468 (SS) of 2000 and prayed for redressal of their grievance. The High Court vide its order of October 31, 2000 directed the respondents to appoint the petitioners, who had been declared successful and selected but such orders did not yield any result. The authorities pleaded in their defence that the Government had imposed a ban on fresh appointments. Several other writ petitions were filed before this Court and interim directions were issued. Large number of vacancies in Group 'D' services are still available. The Government and its authorities are arbitrarily and illegally withholding the issuance of appointment letters. Although no reference to the Government or any approval for appointment of the petitioners was required, yet the Consolidation Commissioner unnecessarily made a reference to the Government seeking permission for Issuing appointment letters. The petitioners moved a representation to the Consolidation Commissioner requesting him for their appointment but the latter has not yet paid any heed to their request. Their representation is still pending. It was in these compelling circumstances that the petitioners were obliged to file these petitions seeking Issuance of writs of mandamus and certiorari as indicated earlier.