RAJEEV RANJAN MISRA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -Heard Sri Ramendra Asthana, learned counsel assisted by Sri Atul Srivastava, of the petitioners and learned standing counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

(2.) THE petitioners, six in numbers, have filed this writ petition challenging the Advertisement No. 02/2007-08 (Annexure-15 to the writ petition) issued by U. P. Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the "Commission") published in daily news paper 'Rojgar Samachar' dated 11/17.8.2007 and have further sought a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to hold selection afresh treating all the petitioners eligible therefor and/or by granting relaxation in age.

(3.) SRI Asthana, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the scheme of 1990 Rules shows that it was incumbent upon the respondents to hold selection for direct recruitment every year and once the respondents failed to hold selection every year, they cannot insist upon, with respect to eligibility of age provided under Rule 10 of 1990 Rules. The scheme of the rules warrants execution and implementation of the entire set of rules in their entirety and if one part of the rule has been violated or breached, the other part of the rule also cannot be adhered to. In support of his submission reliance is placed on the Apex Court decision in State of Maharashtra v. Jagannath Achyut Karandikar, AIR 1989 SC 1133. Arguing that direct recruitment was to be made every year, learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon Rules 10, 14, 26 and 27 of 1990 Rules.