JITENDRA KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Ashok Khare, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Sunil Kumar Srivastava, Advocate on behalf of the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel on behalf of the respondents.

(2.) On 15th June, 2003 an advertisement was published by the Superintending Engineer, Ban Sagar Nagar Nirman, Allahabad (respondent No. 3) inviting applications for appointment against 120 posts of Junior Clerk in the divisional cadre. This process was initiated for filling-up of the back-log of reserved category of vacancies for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Out of total 120 vacancies so advertised, 100 vacancies were reserved for member of Scheduled Castes while remaining 20 vacancies were reserved for member of Scheduled Tribes. Petitioner, namely, Jitendra Kumar belongs to Scheduled Castes category, therefore, he applied for the post. The application of the petitioner was processed and he was invited for type-test on 19th July, 2003 and thereafter for interview on 28th July, 2003. The final result of the said selections was published on 30th July, 2003. In the result so declared the name of the petitioner finds placed at serial No. 1 of the wait-list. However, no appointment in pursuance of the said select-list, could be made, as the State Government imposed a ban vide Government Order dated 29th August, 2003. The said ban was lifted on 15th January, 2004. As a consequent thereto persons, who were issued appointment letters, were permitted to join. One Kumari Mithlesh and one Sri Bhartiya Bhushan Bhartiya, whose names were included in the main select-list, declined to join on the post in question.

(3.) The petitioner on the strength of his name being included/placed at serial No. 1 of the wait-list, set up a claim for being appointed against the vacancies which had become available due to the joining of the selected candidates of the main select-list. Since the claim of the petitioner was not processed, he filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 28778 of 2004 before this Court. The writ petition was disposed of by this Court vide judgment and order dated 28th July, 2004 with a direction upon the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law.