LAWS(ALL)-2014-12-19

ANJALI KUSHWAHA Vs. STATE OF U P

Decided On December 02, 2014
Anjali Kushwaha Appellant
V/S
STATE OF U P Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) OFFICE report dated 23rd July 2014 indicates that notices sent to respondent Nos. 4 and 5 by speed post have not been received back so far. By way of abundant caution, the petitioner was directed to serve respondent Nos. 4 and 5 by Dasti Summons. An affidavit of service has been filed by the petitioner, in which it is stated that respondent No. 4 has accepted the notice while respondent No. 5 refused to receive the same. There is another office report dated 28th October 2014, according to which, service on respondent No. 5 has been deemed sufficient under Chapter VIII Rule 12 Explanation 2 of the Rules of the Court. In spite of sufficient service, no one has appeared on behalf of respondent Nos. 4 & 5.

(2.) HEARD counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Sri Ajay Kumar for respondent No. 3. It is stated by learned counsel for the respondents that the relevant material is already on record and they do not wish to file any counter affidavit.

(3.) THE dispute in the instant writ petition relates to selection on the post of Prerak in Village Panchayat Paing Vikas Khand Hariyawan district Hardoi. The case of the petitioner is that there are two posts of Prerak in the village, out of which, first post is reserved in view of the fact that the Pradhan of the village is a reserved category candidate. Consequently, the 2nd post is to be filled up by General category female candidate on the basis of merit. The petitioner is at Serial No. 2 in the merit list while respondent No. 5 at Serial No. 3. There is no dispute that the person at Serial No. 1 has been appointed against the reserved post. The petitioner, thereafter, became entitled for being appointed against the other post. However, it is contended that the State respondents in order to appease certain politician, appointed respondent No. 5 on the post of Prerak, though she was lower in the merit list. The petitioner has prayed for quashing of the appointment of respondent No. 5 on the post of Prerak and for appointing the petitioner in her place.