JAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) D. K. Seth, J. The petitioner was ap pointed as Sessional Assistant Wasil Vaki Navis in Teshil Anupshahar on 1-7-1989 and had worked till 30-7-1993 as is ap parent from Annexures 1 and 2. Selection for filling up of vacant post of Assistant Wasil Vaki Navis (hereinafter called as the AW. VN.) was held through a selection committee by respondent No. 2. The petitioner appeared in the selection and having been found successful in the writ ten examination was called for interview by the selection committee which prepared a panel of the successful can didates wherein the petitioner's name was placed at SI. No. 11. Though the persons placed at SI. Nos. 1 to 10 and SI. No. 12 were given appointment in the post of A. W. V. N. in different Tehsils but the petitioner has been overlooked in the mat ter of appointment. It is alleged that there are 10 posts of A. W. V. N. still vacant in the office of respondent No. 2 and its subor dinates. Despite such vacancy, instead of giving appointment, the respondents are going to fill up those vacancies through open advertisement without absorbing the candidates selected by the selection com mittee, hence this writ petition.

(2.) MR. Y. D. Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that though there is no rule governing the selection or recruitment of A. W. VN. but by reason of different pronouncements of this Court, a rule similar to those for recruitment of seasonal collection am in is required to be followed i. e. 50% of the posts should be filled up from among the seasonal A. W. VN. He relies on the decision in the case of Veerendra Singh v. Collector, Kanpur Dehat and others, 1995 A. W. C. 397 in suppor of his contention.

(3.) THUS, it appears that the question was gone into and dealt with in all the said judgments but the learned Standing Coun sel contends that the question whether the said judgments tend to legislate was not considered or gone into in any of the said judgments.