VAQIL MISHRA Vs. DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE U P CO OPERATIVE SOCIETIES CENTRALISED SERVICE GORAKHPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) D. P. Mohapatra, CJ. Feeling ag grieved by the Judgment rendered by a learned single Judge of this Court on 8th October, 1991 in Civil Misc. Writ Petitions No. 3665 of 1991, 3480 of 1991, 3481 of 1991,3509 of 1991,3482 of 1991 and 134 of 1991 both the parties in the cases have filed special Appeals assailing the judg ment. The operative portion of the judg ment reads as follows: "in view of the above discussion, writ peti tion No. 134 of 1991 fails and is dismissed. In so far as petitions No. 3665 of 1991,3480 of 1991, 3481 of 1991, 3509 of 1991, 3482 of 1991 are concerned, they are allowed. The respondents are directed to offer appointment to the petitioners Shiv Kumar, Bhagwati Prasad, Shash Nath Singh, Ram Brikash Verma and Ram Asrey on the basis of the selection list prepared by the Selection Committee in its meeting held on 12-4-84 under Rule 25 of the Rules against the existing or future vacancy. The parties are directed to bear their own costs. "

(2.) WHILE Special No. 134 of 1991 has been filed by vaqil Mishra, the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 134 of 1991, the remaining Special Appeals have been filed by the opposite parties in the cases, that is, Writ Petitions No. 3665 of 1991, 3480 of 1991,3481 of 1991,3509 of 1991 and 3482 of 1991, District Administrative Commit tee, U. P. Co-operative Societies Centralised Service, Gorakhpur, Mem ber- Secretary, District Administrative Committee/district Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Gorakhpur and the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, U. P. , Gorakhpur, against the order allowing the writ petitions.

(3.) THE gist of the case of the opposite parties is that recruitment of the writ petitioners for the post of Secretary was made under the order issued by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, U. P. dated 16-4- 1981 (Annexure CA1) and not under Rule 25. In the said order of the Registrar it is specifically stated that on the select list prepared by the Selection Committee being approved by the State Cadre Authority, appointments will be made in the available vacancies. Alterna tively the opposite parties have pleaded that in case the recruitment is held to have been made under Rule 25 then the condi tion prescribed therein that a candidate must appear in a written test has not been fulfilled by the writ petitioners. THErefore, submit the opposite parties, viewed from any angle the writ petitioners claim of ap pointment as Secretaries of Primary Societies is not tenable in law.