BHUWANESHWAR PANDEY Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

(2.) The petitioner, by means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, has claimed the following reliefs :

(3.) The facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition arc that in response to an advertisement issued in the year 1986 application for selection of direct candidates to undergo Sub-Inspector (Civil Police Course) at the Police Training College, Moradabad was invited. The petitioner, according to the assertion made in the petition, being fully eligible applied and was selected and thereafter, he was sent to appear before the Medical Board on 20th April, 1989. The petitioner appeared before the Medical Board as well as before the Interview Board but he was shocked that his name did not find place in the list of selected candidates when he contacted the opposite parties, he was told that despite the fact that he was found eligible by the Interview Board but he was not selected because of the recommendation of the Medical Board whereby the Medical Board him medically unfit for the post. The petitioner contested the aforesaid decision of the Medical Board as the petitioner states in the writ petition, the petitioner has come up this Court and he filed a writ petition being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 15456 of 1989, Bhuwaneshwar Pandey v. State of U.P. and Ors., in which affidavits were exchanged and this Court vide its order dated 26th February, 1990 directed the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioner within one month with a further direction that the petitioner may approach the State Medical Board which was directed to decide the case of the petitioner's fitness within six weeks, The petitioner has been declared medically fit by the State Medical Board. Thereafter, the petitioner's representation was decided, though, according to the petitioner, he has been declared medically fit by the State Medical Board, he was allowed to join only after about three years of the selection held in the year 1989. The petitioner has successfully completed the training and is now appointed Sub-Inspector (Civil Police). The petitioner by means of this writ petition claims that he should be assigned the seniority alongwith the batch of the year 1989 and not with the batch in which he actually undergone the training.