TUNGESHWAR NATH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 29 July, 2008 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant. The writ petition was directed against the order dated 2nd July, 2008 passed by Advocate General, by which the selections on Class-IV posts made in the year, 2005 have been cancelled. Facts in brief for deciding this spe cial appeal are as follows: In the year 2005 appointment on vacant class IV posts in the office of Advo cate General at U. P. and in the office of Government Advocate at Allahabad were made in the year 2005. Writ Petition No. 1200 of 2006; Vivek Kumar and others v. State of U. P. and others, was filed before this Court questioning the said selec tions. In the writ petition a statement was made by the learned Advocate General that in view of the discrepancies noticed in selections, a decision has been taken to cancel the selections held for Class-IV posts in the office of Advocate General as well as of Government Advocate and suitable orders for cancelling the selec tions shall be passed within week. In view of the aforesaid statement, the Court disposed of the writ petition after recording the statement of Additional Advocate General.

(2.) ON 10. 4. 2006 the Advocate General is stated to have passed the order cancelling the selections so made. Another writ petition, being Writ Petition No. 24620 of 2006; Km. Hemlata and others v. State of U. P. and others, was decided vide judgment and order dated 31. 5. 2007, whereby the order dated 10. 4. 2006, terminating the services of the selected candidates, was set aside only on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. However, liberty was given to learned Advocate General to examine the matter and to take fresh decision.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant contends that earlier also when the issue of selection was raised in earlier writ petitions, no such objection qua adver tisement was raised. It was only in the order dated 2nd July, 2007 such an objec tion has been raised for the first time. The same office of Advocate General had earlier defended the selections made. Respondents cannot now be permitted to turn around and assert that the selections were illegal for want of advertisement. Details of number of persons who actually applied for the post have also been referred to for contending that selections were fair.