VLJAY KUMAR SHUKLA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A. S. Gill, J. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution petitioner seeks issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus to the opposite parties, directing them to give appointment to him on the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) from the date of appointment of his next junior and to allow his all the benefits attached to the post, which have been given his juniors on the post.

(2.) THE facts, as have been narrated in the writ petition, are that the petitioner Vijay Kumar Shukla in response to a Government advertisement for the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) was interviewed on 2nd July, 1983 by a selection committee and he was placed at serial No. 98 out of the 200 persons declared successful. THE appoint ments were given to successful candidates, even to the candidates whose names were in the select list below than the petitioner i. e. , from serial Nos. 99 to 140\and that the petitioner was discriminated in the matter of appointment, which contravened con stitutional mandate in Articles 14 and 16. Petitioner submitted representations to the Director, Local Bodies U. P, opposite party No. 2, who referred the matter to the Government and the case was considered by the Joint Secretary and the Secretary and nothing fruitful was indicated to the petitioner and ultimately on 19th May, 1987 the opposite party No. 2 informed the petitioner that it was not possible to give him appointment at this very late stage. THE petitioner claims that the opposite parties have adopted pick and choose method in the matter of appointment and the rightful claim of the petitioner has been denied to him as he had a right to get appointment on the post of Junior Engineer as juniors to him in the merit list were given appoint ment.

(3.) THE facts of the case are not much in dispute. It is admitted case of the parties that for the post of Junior Engineer the petitioner was one of the successful and selected candidates and his name figured at serial No. 98 of the select list (merit list ). It is not disputed that the select list was adhered to by the appointing authority and the ap pointments to various candidates were given and the State Government requisi tioned six names from the same very select list from Director, Local Bodies for ap pointment of Junior Engineers in the Town Area Committees in the districts of Ballia and Gorakhpur and in response the Direc tor, Local Bodies vide its letter dated 4th June, 1986, copy of which is stated to be Annexure R-l, had sent the names of six persons, four from general category and one each from scheduled caste and backward castes for appointment and posting purposes. It was further admitted case that the successful candidates subsequent and junior to the petitioner in the select list were given appointments, however, the petitioner was denied the appointment, when it came to be known through letter dated 31st July, 1985, which was in reply to the letter dated 16th January, 1985 whereby the Government in formed the Director, Local Bodies that the select list of Junior Engineers dated 15th October, 1983 was for one year and it was not possible to extend the same and that a fresh selection would be made for filling up of the vacancies. It would, thus, be seen that although the Director, Local Bodies made appointments on the various posts of Junior Engineers (Civil) from the select list even of candidates who were junior to the petitioner, the petitioner was denied the appointment simply because his appoint ment and posting order was not issued by the State Government although his name for the same purpose was sent well within the period of one year of the life of the select list, if it be taken that it was only for one year. THE petitioner was denied the appoint ment for no fault of his. In the circumstances he was to be given appointment by the Director, Local Bodies in case his name alongwith others had not been sent to the State Government in response to a requisi tion for appointment of such number of Junior Engineer (Civil) by the Government in the Town Area Committees of districts Ballia and Gorakhpur. It is obviously clear that the Government had requisitioned the names, including that of the petitioner from the select list which was in operation and appointments were being given by the Director, Local Bodies, but the appoint ment was not given to the petitioner and other persons simply because that after lapse of one year the Government decided not to give appointment to the petitioner. THEre is merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that ad mittedly the posts were available in the dis tricts of Ballia and Gorakhpur, which were sought to be filled up by the Government, but the concerned authorities slept over the matter and did not pass the appointment orders in respect of the petitioner without any reasonable excuse and to take a stand that since the period of the list had expired, cannot serve detriment to the petitioner.