RAM KRISHNA TRIPATHI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal is being filed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 1st March 2007, passed in Writ Petition No. 36523 of 2005, which has been decided along with other writ petitions beyond time by 3 years 141 days along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act supported by an affidavit. The appellant has explained the delay in the affidavit, which are as follows:

(2.) IT appears that for the appointment of junior clerk, stenographer etc. in the consolidation department an advertisement was made on 18th August 2004 in two daily newspapers. In pursuance thereof, the select list has been published. Subsequently, vide order dated 8.1.2005 passed by the Consolidation Commissioner, U.P. Lucknow the selection held for the post of Junior Clerk, Saraniyak and Stenographer has been cancelled. The order of the Consolidation Commissioner was challenged in the writ petition by the petitioner along with other petitioners. The selection has been challenged on the ground that the vacancies were published only in newspaper and not notified in the employment exchange at all which was non -compliance of the Rule 5(1)(3) of 2000 Rules. It was also found that in the advertisement against six posts of Junior Clerk, four were kept reserved that is three for scheduled caste and one for other than backward class and two were left for general category candidates. Similarly, the sole post of Saraniyak was kept reserved for scheduled caste candidate and against seven posts three were reserved for scheduled caste, two for other than backward class leaving only two posts for unreserved category, meaning thereby when the reservation applied then the reserved vacancy is not more than 50%. Certain other irregularities were also found relating to the reservation. Learned Single Judge has upheld the order of the Consolidation Commissioner by observing that non -notification of the vacancy in the employment exchange was non -compliance of Rule 5(1)(3) of 2000 Rules, which was mandatory. It was further observed that in the advertisement there was irregularity in respect of the reservation of the posts and further irregularities have been committed in providing the reservation in the select list.

(3.) WE find that the appellant has not given proper explanation for the delay. It is wholly unbelievable that for three years the appellant has not inquired about his case. Secondly, it is stated that the necessary information has been given by the counsel by post. There is nothing on record to the contrary. On merit also, we find no illegality in the order of the learned Single Judge.