VINAY KUMAR UPADHYAY Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri N.L. Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents no. 1 to 3. The respondent no. 4 was issued notice by registered post pursuant to this Court's order dated 13.10.2008. As per the office report the notice through registered post/AD sent on 17.10.2008 and the office report dated 13.07.2009 shows that notice has been received unserved with post office report "refused". In the circumstances the service of notice is deemed sufficient. Neither any counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent no. 4 nor any one has put in appearance on his behalf. Respondents no. 1 to 3 have filed counter affidavit and supplementary counter affidavit. Petitioner has also filed rejoinder affidavit and, therefore, as requested and agreed by learned counsels for the parties, this writ petition has been heard and is being decided finally at this stage under the Rules of the Court.

(2.) BY means of the present writ petition the order dated 03.10.2007 passed by the District Magistrate, Sant Ravidas Nagar (Bhadohi) has been assailed whereby the representation of petitioner against his supersession/non selection for substantive appointment on the post of Collection Peon has been rejected confirming selection and appointment of respondent no. 4 for such appointment.

(3.) LEARNED Standing Counsel relying on his counter affidavit, however, supported the selection of respondent no. 4 as well as the impugned order passed by the District Magistrate, Sant Ravidas Nagar (Bhadohi) and said that the same has been passed in accordance with law.