LAWS(ALL)-2006-11-9

ASHWANI KHARE Vs. STATE OF U P

Decided On November 29, 2006
ASHWANI KHARE Appellant
V/S
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TARUN Agarwala, J. The petitioners have filed the present writ petition praying for the quashing of the appointment letters issued to the respondents and have also prayed for a writ of mandamus to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for appointment on the post of Routine Grade Clerk (hereinafter referred to as "r. G. C. " ). The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition is, that an advertisement was issued in the year 1999 for the recruitment of R. G. C. on 135 posts in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. Pursuant to the said advertisement, the petitioners applied and in February, 2001, the results were declared and a select list was issued. The petitioners' names were found in the waiting list. Some of the petitioners made a representation in the year 2002, 2003 and 2004 praying that they should be considered for the appointment on the post of R. G. C. on the basis of their names being found in the waiting list. The representations of some of the petitioners was rejected by the Hon'ble Chief Justice, by his order dated 5-12- 2003, which was intimated by the Registrar General, by his order dated 5-12-2003. Consequently, the writ petitions.

(2.) HEARD Sri Rajesh Khare and Sri V. K. Singh for the petitioners, Sri Ravi Kant, the learned senior Counsel assisted by Sri Amit Sthalker for the High Court and Sri Ashok Khare, the learned senior Counsel assisted by Sri V. P. Mathur, Sri K. J. Khare and Sri Rishi Chaddha for the contesting respondents.

(3.) SRI Ashok Khare, the leaned Counsel for the respondent No. 6 assisted by SRI V. P. Mathur submitted that the said respondent was not appointed on an ad hoc basis but was appointed on the basis of a regular selection being held and subsequently was sent to the High Court on deputation where he was absorbed by an order of the Chief Justice in the year 2001. The learned Counsel submitted that his appointment has unnecessarily been challenged by the petitioners and that he has unnecessarily being arrayed as a party.