VIMAL PRATAP SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant special appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 24.3.3005 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 37964 of 2004 (Vimal Pratap Singh and others Vs. State of U.P. and others) whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition with a direction to Registrar General of this Court to constitute a committee to examine the entire selection process held in Etah Judgeship for recruitment of Class III posts and to submit a report to the Administrative Judge.

(2.) We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

(3.) Some background facts, in brief, are that appellants were candidates for direct recruitment against 9 vacancies of Class III posts in the judgeship of Etah. The advertisement for such posts was published in two newspapers Zila Times and Rozgar Sangrah, both dated 14.11.2003. The appellants participated in the written examination held on 14.12.2003. However, several complaints were made against the examination process including the complaints regarding selection and appointment of a large number of wards of the employees of the judgeship and of corrupt practices including taking of illegal gratification for the appointments. The Administrative Judge, Etah on receipt of some complaints stayed the declaration of result for verifying the selection process vide his order dated 28.8.2004 which was communicated to the District Judge by way of fax and also by D.O. Letter. Despite this, the list of selected candidates was approved and forwarded by the Chairman of the Examination Committee to the District Judge, Etah on 1.9.2004 and the District Judge accepted the report on the same day and published the list of selected candidates. The District Judge not only proceeded to declare the result on 1.9.2004 but he also issued the appointment letters on the same day. All the selected candidates joined on 2.9.2004. Under the aforesaid circumstances, a detailed enquiry was conducted wherein the charges levelled against the Chairman of the Selection Committee were found proved to the effect that 8 wards of civil court's staff were found placed in the selection list/waiting list and even the candidates below the age of 18 years were found to have permitted to participate in the written test. Thus, the entire selection process was found unfair and non transparent. Moreover, the great hurry and hot haste in which appointment letters were issued within 24 hours of the declaration of the result and joining of all the selected candidates on the next day, made the entire selection process suspicious and doubtful. Under these circumstances, the Administrative Judge, Etah who had sufficient reasons to believe that the then District Judge, Etah, despite having full knowledge about the order dated 28.8.2004, proceeded with the selection with a view to frustrate his order and completed the entire proceedings with exceptional haste, directed the District Judge to cancel the result. Therefore, the result of the appellants was cancelled as mentioned above.