CHANDRA SHEKHAR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Electricity Service Commission, Lucknow, issued an Advertisement No. 2 of 2003, whereby applications were invited for appointment of 190 Office Assistant Grade III. All the posts to be filled up were of backlog vacancies falling under the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes category. The petitioners were some of the applicants in response to the aforesaid advertisement. All the petitioners are Scheduled Caste candidates regarding which there is no dispute. The petitioners participated in the examination conducted by the Electricity Service Commission and on the basis of the same, the results of typing and computer examination were published in the first week of August, 2003. Since the petitioners had qualified in the written examination, they were called for interview and finally the Commission on 22.8.2003, prepared the select list, in which the names of the petitioners were shown as the selected candidates. The Commission, thereafter on 25.8.2003, forwarded the names of the petitioners for appointment in its Varanasi and Allahabad circles. However, subsequently all the petitioners were assigned Varanasi Circle. On 28.8.2003, appointment letters were issued by General Manager of the Corporation to some of the petitioners, namely, petitioner Nos. 3, 5, 6 and 8 and in respect of the remaining petitioners also, the appointment letters were to be issued on the basis of the said select list dated 22.8.2003. By means of the Government order dated 29.8.2003 issued by the State Government a ban was imposed on further appointments to be made by the respondents and other Government departments except for Group 'C' posts pertaining to 2001 selection in which interim orders had been passed by the High Court. Thereafter by the impugned order dated 1.9.2003 passed by the Deputy General Manager, the appointment letters already issued in favour of some of the petitioners had been cancelled. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioners have filed this writ petition with a prayer for quashing the order dated 1.9.2003 and also for a direction to the respondents for declaring the Government order dated 29.8.2003 as not applicable to the Corporation or alternatively to quash the said Government order. A further prayer has also been made for a direction to the respondents to permit those petitioners, to whom appointments letters had already been issued, to join on the post of Office Assistant Grade III on which posts they had been selected and also to forthwith issue appointment letters in favour of the remaining petitioners and to permit the petitioners to function on the said posts and be paid their salary regularly month by month.

(2.) I have heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned senior counsel assisted by Sarva Shri Sanjai Kumar Rai and V.K. Singh, appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Sri Ranjeet Saxena, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-corporation as well as learned standing counsel for the State-respondents and have perused the record.

(3.) It is the categorical case of the petitioners that they have been denied appointment merely on the basis of the restriction on appointment having been imposed by the Government order dated 29.8.2003. The said averments have not been denied by the respondents in their counter-affidavit. Admittedly the said Government order dated 29.8.2003 has now been withdrawn by he State Government itself by its order dated 15.1.2004, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure-1 to the rejoinder-affidavit. It has also been clearly stated in paragraphs 32 and 33 of the writ petition that about 120 candidates, out of 190 candidates selected in the aforesaid examination, had already been given appointment, who had also joined and were working. Some such candidates were even lower in order of merit than the petitioners. The said position has also not been denied in the counter-affidavit. The only ground which has now been raised by Sri Ranjeet Saxena during the course of arguments while justifying the action of the respondents is that "some enquiry" is pending with regard to the said selection. The respondents have set out no such case in their counter-affidavit and a mere casual reference of an "investigation" being conducted has been made. It has been stated that there are "some reasons" for not appointing the petitioners. What possible reasons could there be for not giving the appointments to the petitioner even after the issuance of the select list in which they were declared selected, have not been specified. The counter-affidavit is totally silent of any "enquiry" regarding the selection nor has it been stated that on what grounds the alleged enquiry is to be conducted and by whom. Only oral submissions have been made that an enquiry is likely to be conducted and completed very soon and thus, the hearing of this writ petition may be adjourned. In the absence of any such averments having been made in the counter-affidavit, the prayer does not appear to be justified and is, thus, rejected. Even otherwise from the counter-affidavit it is not disclosed as to what sort of irregularity or illegality could be said to have been committed during the selection process. It is for the first time during the course of argument that the mention of any enquiry has been made, although it was the categorical case of the petitioners that appointments were not being given to the petitioners merely on the ground that a ban had been imposed by the State Government by its order dated 29.8.2003. In view of the ban having been withdrawn by the State Government vide its order dated 15.1.2004, the said ground also does not exist any longer.