GAJENDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -Heard Sri Ashok Khare, senior advocate, assisted by Sri A. K. Singh in Writ Petition Nos. 19367 of 2003, 19045 of 2003 and 18791 of 2003, Sri Ghanshyam Dwivedi in Writ Petition No. 20213 of 2003 and Sri Ramendra Asthana in Writ Petition No. 20150 of 2003, and learned standing counsel for respondents in the above writ petition.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to these writ petitions are stated as below : In Writ Petition Nos. 19367 of 2003, 19045 of 2003 and 18791 of 2003, petitioners applied in pursuance of advertisement in newspaper 'Dainik Jagran' dated 30.8.2001, for appointment to Group C posts under U. P. (Outside the Purview of Public Service Commission) Procedure for Direct Recruitment Group 'C' Posts Rules, 2001. All the petitioners applied for 54 advertised vacancies of Junior Clerks ; 14 for typists and 8 of Apprentice Clerks in the Government Press, Allahabad, for which appointing authority is the Joint Director, Government Press, Allahabad. Whereas the minimum qualification for the posts of Junior Clerks was provided to be Intermediate, and for the posts of Typists, the minimum qualification prescribed as Intermediate with proficiency in typing 25 words per minute in Hindi. THE advertisement was published under the authority of Chief Development Officer/Chairman District Selection Committee (Group C), Allahabad. In Writ Petition No. 18791 of 2003, petitioners 1, 2, 5 and 6 belong to general category, petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 belong to other backward class, and petitioner No. 5 claims reservation as dependent of Freedom Fighter. In Writ Petition No. 19045 of 2003 also both petitioners belong to general category and in Writ Petition No. 19367 of 2003, both petitioners belong to general category. All the petitioners applied for all the three posts and in column 7 (b) of the application form, they disclosed that they are proficient in typing.

(3.) IT appears that inspite of the aforesaid assurance given to this Court, respondents offered appointment to the candidates out of the select list, leaving only 8 posts. Since these appointment letters were issued against an assurance given by the respondents to this Court, and were made during the pendency of the writ petition, the Court did not consider it proper to implead all the appointees to decide the rights of petitioners, and has proceeded to decide the case in absence of these appointees.