KOPE SINGH Vs. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) D. K. Seth, J. In writ petition No. 32378 of 1993 an interim order was passed on 10th September, 1993. On 7th October, 1993 an application for vacating the interim order was filed. On the said application direction for filing rejoinder-affidavit to the accompanying counter-affidavit was issued Rejoinder has accordingly been filed. By order dated 7th October, 1993 the applica tion was directed to be listed on 1-11-1993. For some reason or the other the applica tion could not be disposed of and is now been placed before this Court. Mr. Saxena learned Counsel for the respondent presses the said application vehemently. Hearing of the said application would in effect decide the main issues. By consent, therefore, the main matter is taken up for hearing.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to the present case inter alia was that the petitioner was selected in terms of an advertisement for the post of tubewell Assistant. THE procedure for such selection was laid down in a circular contained in Annexure-CA-1 to the writ petition No. 15647 of 1993. It is alleged that the petitioner was so selected pursuant to the said procedure contained in Annexure-CA 1. But subsequently the selection was sought to be cancelled by an order dt. 11-1-1993 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition No. 15647 of 1993) ( here in after referred to as the first writ petition ). THE said order con tained in Annexure-4 to the first writ peti tion was challenged by means of the first writ petition and an interim order was ob tained staying the operation there of. f on 8th August, 1995. By reason of the said interim order the petitioner was given appointment by an order dt. 15th May, 1993 which is Annexure-6 to the writ petition No. 32378 of 93 (here in after referred to as the second writ petition ). Subsequently by an order dt. 5th August, 1993 the respondent No. 3 was directed to take over charge in respect of the tubewell in which the petitioner was sought to be appointed. This order has been chal lenged by means of the second writ petition.

(3.) MR. A. K. Singh on the other hand contends that the respondents had selected the petition on the basis of the certificate which has never been alleged to be in-genuine with their eyes open. Therefore, after having selected on the basis of the said certificate they are estopped from cancell ing the selection since there was no fault on the part of the petitioner.