CHANDRAHAS Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IT transpires that applications were invited for appointment on the post of Junior Clerk. The petitioner's name was sponsored by the Employment Exchange. The petitioner appeared in the written test and was declared successful, and thereafter, was called for the interview. A select list was published, which included the name of the petitioner, and the respondents thereafter, issued an appointment letter dated 5th of November, 1997. The petitioner joined the services as a Junior Clerk on 06.11.1997 and discharged his duty till 12th of November, 1997, on which date, the services of the petitioner was terminated on the ground that the State Government has issued an order dated 3rd of November, 1997 imposing a ban on all appointments in the State of U.P., and therefore, the petitioner could not be appointed pursuant to the ban order issued by the State Government. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the said order, filed a Writ Petition No. 38644 of 1997. The writ Court, by a judgment dated 17th February, 2003, quashed the order of termination and directed the respondents to pass a fresh order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Based on the said direction, the respondents passed an order dated 16th September, 2003, rejecting the representation of the petitioner, holding that it was not possible to take back the petitioner in service again. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the said order, filed the present writ petition, and during the pendency of the writ petition, an interim order was issued directing the authorities to pass a reasoned and speaking order, since the impugned order dated 16th September, 2003 did not contain any reason. Based on the interim order of the Court, the respondents passed an order dated 23rd June, 2005 rejecting the claim of the petitioner, holding that the petitioner could not be appointed since a ban was imposed by the State Government by an order dated 3rd of November, 1997.

(2.) IN the meanwhile, the respondents issued an advertisement on 6th of August 2002 and again on 9th of August, 2007, inviting applications for the post of Junior Clerk. These advertisements were stayed by an interim order of the Court.

(3.) IN my opinion, assuming that the State Government had the power to impose a ban on all the appointments, such imposition of a ban could only be made prospectively and would not apply where the selection process had already been initiated and was nearing completion.