RAKESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of this petition the petitioner has challenged the order-dated 6.6.2003 by which the Commandant 15 Battalion, P.A.C. Agra, has cancelled the selection of the petitioner. The facts arising out of the present petition are that the Deputy Inspector General of Police (Establishment), U.P. Police Headquarter, Allahabad issued an advertisement inviting applications for recruitment of 2200 male constables for Provincial Armed Constables in the State of U.P. The said advertisement was published in Newspaper 'Amar Ujala' on 1.9.2001. It has been alleged in the writ petition that as the petitioner was fully qualified and was eligible, in pursuance of the aforesaid advertisement, he appeared in the physical test which was held between 5.9.2001 to 1.10.2001, and the petitioner was declared qualified. After that a written examination was held on 9.11.2001 and the petitioner was declared successful and qualified the test. Subsequently, in the interview the petitioner also participated and the final select list was published in the first week of December 2001 in which the petitioner was also amongst the selected candidates. It. is the case of the petitioner that despite completion of the aforesaid selection process, no appointment letter was issued him. It appears that on the basis of some radiogram and the interim order granted by the Supreme Court in Writ Petition No. 4882 of 2001, the appointments were withheld. Subsequently, in pursuance of the judgment dated 6.2.2002 the State Government issued a Government order in the month of April 2003 directing the implementation of the said judgment and granting the appointment though the selection proceedings were completed in 2001. As no appointment order was issued to the petitioner, instead of issuing of the appointment order in favour of the petitioner, an order was passed cancelling the selection of the petitioner by the Commandant 15 Battalion, Agra on 6.6.2003. Copy of the said impugned order is annexure 4 to the writ petition.

(2.) From the perusal of the order it is clear that the order dated 6.6.2003 has been passed taking into consideration that the petitioner who has filed an affidavit, has not stated the fact regarding pendency of any criminal proceeding. The challenge of the impugned order, by the petitioner is on the ground that the orders by the authorities concerned have been passed in an arbitrary manner without any notice and opportunity to the petitioner.

(3.) The Standing Counsel was granted time to file counter affidavit and a detailed counter affidavit was tiled and the rejoinder affidavit was exchanged. With the consent of the parties, the writ petition is being disposed of finally.