SANJAY KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SANJAY Kumar is before this Court assailing the validity of the order dated 25 November 2013 passed by the State Government as well as the order dated 7 April 2015 passed by the State Public Services Tribunal at Lucknow in Claim Petition No. 199 of 2014 refusing to accept the request of petitioner for being accorded placement as Deputy Collector.

(2.) BRIEF background of the case is that U.P. Public Service Commission notified the Combined State/Upper Subordinate Service Examination 2001, which include several categories of posts including the post of Deputy Collector and Deputy Superintendent of Police and in the said recruitment two posts of Deputy Collectors were advertised for SC category while fourteen posts of Deputy Superintendent of Police were advertised in the same category. Petitioner, who belongs to SC category, was also an applicant in the said recruitment. In the preference given by the petitioner, he indicated the post of Deputy Collector as also Deputy Superintendent of Police for appointment. The final result of the aforesaid competitive examination was published on 27 November 2003 and petitioner was shown as selected for the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police and petitioner was granted appointment in the year 2004 and he joined his duties and has been continuously performing and discharging his duties since then. In the result dated 27 November 2003 Dharmendra Singh and Abhay Kumar Singh bearing roll nos. 139855 and 014571 respectively were shown as selected for the post of Deputy Collector under the SC category and appointment letters were issued to both of them. However, it has subsequently transpired that Abhay Kumar Singh did not join his duty as Deputy Collector. So by office order of the State Government dated 26 February 2008 the candidature of Abhay Kumar Singh has been cancelled. Petitioner claims to have acquired knowledge of such cancellation from communication dated 2 February 2010. Petitioner submits that as such one post of Deputy Collector under the SC category continued to remain vacant and has not been filled up by appointment of any person and the said vacancy was required to be filled up from the remaining merit list of SC candidates prepared in pursuance to Combined State/Upper Subordinate Service Examination 2001 and it was incumbent upon the respondents to have granted appointment to the petitioner against the vacant post of Deputy Collector. It is also stated that the candidates namely Shailendra Lal and Himanshu Gautam, higher in merit than the petitioner under the SC category were appointed as Deputy Superintendent of Police. Shailendra Lal did not give preference for appointment as Deputy Collector and Himanshu Gautam has been selected as Deputy Collector in the year 2002, as such, petitioner is the next candidate in order of merit belonging to SC category, who had expressed his preference for appointment as Deputy Collector. Petitioner has also filed office orders dated 31 January 1994 and 15 November 1999 governing utilization of remaining merit list and when the respondents did not grant appointment to the petitioner as Deputy Collector, he filed writ petition no. 10214 of 2011 before this Court and this Court directed for consideration of the matter at the level of State Government by deciding the representation of petitioner.

(3.) PURSUANT to the order passed by this Court on 7 February 2013 claim of petitioner has been considered and same has been turned down. Petitioner at the said juncture filed Claim Petition No. 199 of 2014 and same has also been rejected by the Tribunal concerned and thus impelling the petitioner to be before this Court.