Allahabad High Court
Dr. Mithilesh Chandra Mishra And 8 ... vs State Of U.P.& 3 Ors. on 23 October, 2013
Bench: Rajes Kumar, Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 33
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 58172 of 2013
Petitioner :- Dr. Mithilesh Chandra Mishra And 8 Ors.
Respondent :- State Of U.P.& 3 Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Santosh Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,V.P.Mathur
Hon'ble Rajes Kumar,J.
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Petitioner nos. 1 to 4 and 7 & 8 are of General Category and petitioner nos. 5, 6 & 9 are of S.C. Category. All the petitioners applied for the post of Economics and Statistics Officer in the State Planning Institute, U.P. in pursuance of the advertisement no. 3/12-13, dated 16.6.2012. The advertisement was made for 16 posts. Out of 16 posts, 4 posts were reserved for S.C. Category, 1 post was reserved for S.T. Category, 2 posts were reserved for OBC Category and 9 posts were reserved for General Category.
The grievance of the petitioners is that as against the 9 posts of General Category candidate, 86 candidates of General Category were called for interview, which comes to 9.5 times and for two posts of OBC Category, 43 candidates of OBC Category were called for interview, which comes to 21.5 times and four posts were reserved for SC Category against which 38 candidates of SC Category were called for interview, which comes to 10 times and lastly against one post reserved for ST Category against which 7 candidates of ST Category were called for interview, which comes to 7 times.
The submission of the petitioners is that there is no rational basis for calling the candidates. There should be a uniform policy for calling of the candidates. If in case of unserved category, 21.5 times candidates would have been invited for interview, the petitioners would also get a chance to appear in the interview. By calling only 9.5 times of the post of General Category and 10 times in case of S.C., a discrimination has been made, which is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The submission is that the entire exercise is mala fide with the intention to provide benefit to one particular class, namely, OBC. The submission is that the interview was fixed on 21, 22, 23 and 24.10.2013. Though the interview has been started on 21.10.2013, but an online press notification has been issued fixing the cut off date of each subject separately, which is wholly arbitrary.
Prima facie, we find substance in the argument of learned counsel for the petitioners.
We are of the view that the fixation of number of times for calling the candidates of a different category is arbitrary.
Sri M.A. Quadeer, Senior Advocate, is directed to file counter affidavit within a period of three weeks. Rejoinder affidavit may be filed within one week thereafter.
Learned Standing Counsel, who appears on behalf of respondent no. 1, may also file counter affidavit within the aforesaid period.
List in week commencing 2.12.2013.
It is stated that the interview has already been held on 21 and 22.10.2013 and is also scheduled to be held on 23 and 24.10.2013.
It is open to the respondent to hold the interview on 23 and 24.10.2013, but the Commission is directed not to make any further exercise after the interview, and keep the entire documents, relating to the interview, in a sealed cover and no further exercise shall be made without the permission of the Court till the next date of listing.
Order Date :- 23.10.2013
OP
