MAHIPAL SINGHS Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prayers made in the writ petition are for quashing the order dated 27.8.1991 at Annexure No. 5 to the writ petition passed by the respondent No. 3 cancelling the selection of the petitioners for the post of Tube-well Mis tries and for Issuance of mandamus commanding the respondents to appoint the petitioners against the existing vacancies of tube-well mlstrtes in the Tube-well Circle, Agra for which they were selected.

(2.) The facts stated in the writ petition are that the petitioners alongwith other candidates appeared in the test on 5.4.1991 for selection in respect of the post of tube-well mlstrles in Irrigation branch of public works department of Uttar Pradesh. All the three petitioners were found eligible and their names were included in the select list dated 19.7.1991 showing the names of the petitioners at Serial Nos. 2, 3 and 4 therein. The said list was sent for approval on 22.7.1991 and thereafter by office memorandum dated 27.8.1991, the respondent No. 3 cancelled the said list on the ground that the Divisions have been reorganised and consequently the position of number of vacancies had been changed. It came to the knowledge of the petitioner that by order dated 1.8.1991 there was reorganisation of the Divisions and as a result thereof Etah Division went out of Agra region to Allgarh region and that is why the Impugned order dated 27.8.1991 was passed cancelling the said selection list.

(3.) The respondents filed counter-affidavit admitting that the petitioners were selected and their names were in the select list and the same was sent for approval on 22.7,1991 but it has been stated that as there was reorganisation of the Tube-well Divisions on 1.8.1991, the position of vacancy had altered and, therefore, the select list had to be cancelled on 27.8.1991. In support of such action, the respondents have disclosed several reasons and disclosed the position of vacancy at the relevant time. It was also stated therein that although ten persons were selected but the vacancies were available only in respect of six posts In respect of the Divisions within Agra region after reorganisation. Contention was also made that the selection was made in violation of reservation policy. The petitioners filed rejoinder-affidavit disclosing the material that the vacancy position after reorganisation had not been correctly disclosed in the counter-affidavit and in Agra region vacancy after reorganisation was not only six but it was more than that.