SHITLA SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsels for the parties at length and perused the orchard.

(2.) U.P. Public Service Commission/Respondent No. 3 placed its original record + original marks competitive sheets in sealed cover and we perused them also. Shitla Singh petitioner has approached this Court through present Writ Petition No. 47231 of 2003, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and claims following reliefs : (a) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of prohibition restraining the respondents from appointing respondent No. 4 Sri Pawan Kumar Tiwari as Civil Judge (Junior Division) in U.P. Nyayik Seva; (b) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of curative mandamus commanding the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for being appointed as Civil Judge (Junior Division) to the U.P. Nyayik Seva; (c) issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case; (d) Award costs of the petition to the petitioner.

(3.) The grounds for seeking aforementioned reliefs are that before passing Judgment and order dated 19.8.2003 (Annexure-1 to Writ Petition) in the Writ Petition No. 38940 of 1999 (Pawan Kumar Tiwari v. State of U.P. and Ors.) containing direction to issue Writ of mandamus to appoint Pawan Kumar Tiwari, this Court ought to have examined the question as to whether there are more meritorious candidates above him and available for appointment, without considering merit of number of other candidates, this Court ought to have acted with restrain and refrained from issuing, writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to appoint the petitioner in service; petitioner contends that comparatively he is a superior candidate as compared to Pawan Kumar Tiwari, the mandamus issued by this Court in the writ of Pawan Kumar Tiwari is in contravention of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India; in view of Rule 19(6) and the note appearing in Appendix E of he Rules, petitioner's claim is better than Pawan Kumar Tiwari aforesaid judgment and order of this Court has caused grave injustice to the petitioner; and that curative writ of mandamus be issued directing the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for appointment as Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) in U.P. Niyayik Seva.