RAM AWADH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The U.P. Public Service Commission in the year 1981 had advertised vacancies for recruitment in the posts of Block Development Officers and other allied services. In pursuance thereto the petitioner as a candidate of the reserved category of Other Backward Classes (hereinafter referred as 'OBC') had offered his candidature and made an application for the recruitment. After his having qualified in the written test as well as in the interview, his name appeared in the final result, which was declared on 10.6.1983. The petitioner was shown at No. 1 in the OBC category of the waiting list approved by the Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred as 'the Commission'). The Commission with its recommendations sent the merit list as well as waiting list to the Government. As some candidates selected in the category of OBC did not join the service and they intimated their intention to the Commission as well as the Government in writing, the appointment in the vacancies left by them should have been offered to the petitioner. The repeated communication of the petitioner with the Commission did not get any response from the other side and he did not receive any intimation regarding his appointment against the existing vacancies. The petitioner was given to understand that his appointment could not be made against those vacancies as the Government had failed to utilize the waiting list within a period of one year from the date of publication of the result. In Paras 10 and 11 of the writ petition it is contended that the relevance of the period of one year life of a select list/waiting list has been negatived in subsequent Government Orders, which have been annexed as Annexures No. 1 and 2 to the writ petition. Once waiting list candidate, namely Hakim Singh got his appointment in the year 1989 much after the expiry of the life period of the list, but the petitioner's all efforts for his adjustment by way of appointment to the post of Block Development Officer etc. have given no result. The petitioner has, thus, prayed for a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to appoint him on the post of Block Development Officer etc. on the basis of result of 1981 examination and also to command respondent No. 3, the Commission, to take a decision in the matter of petitioner's recommendation for appointment to the aforesaid vacant posts.

(2.) Subsequent to the filing of the writ petition, the petitioner under the orders of the Court impleaded Respondents No. 4 and 5 in the petition. The Respondents No. 1 and 2 have not filed any counter affidavit in the case. Respondent No. 3, the Commission, has contested and filed a counter affidavit. In Para 7 of the counter affidavit it is pleaded that the first communication, which it received from the Agricultural Production and Rural Development Department of the Government was dated 15.6.1984 and subsequent letter dated 27.9.1985 was also received informing that 26 candidates had not jointed on the post of BDO. Since both the letters sent by the Appointing Authority to the Commission were of the date falling after the expiry of the period of life of select list/waiting list, they were treated as time barred in view of the Government Order dated 30.1.1979, 2.2.1981, 14.7.1981 and 15.7.1982. Accordingly the Commission did not recommend any name to the Government from out of the said waiting list for appointment against the existing vacancies on the posts of BDO etc. The Commission has further contended that there are several other candidates of higher merit, who had their better claim than the petitioner for appointment against the existing vacancies and there was no justification for the Commission to recommend petitioner's name for such appointment. It is, however, admitted in Para 12 of the counter affidavit that some earlier petitions were filed in respect of the same matter in which this Court has given decision holding that the list would continue after one year provided the vacancy had arisen within one year of the life duration of the select list/waiting list. In the counter affidavit, the Commission has also given the details of those candidates of 1981 examination whose names had been recommended to the Government on the direction given by the Court. The respondent No. 4, Jai Ram Varma, after his impleadment has also put in appearance and filed his counter affidavit stating that he had secured more marks in the said competitive examination than the petitioner and as such his appointment against the vacancy of Block Development Officer cannot be dislodged and the petitioner's claim cannot be preferred as against him,

(3.) We have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3, the Commission, and respondent No. 4, Jai Ram Varma.