Allahabad High Court
Rinkoo Rai vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 12 January, 2021
Bench: Ashwani Kumar Mishra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 33
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 14391 of 2020
Petitioner :- Rinkoo Rai
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Dhirendra Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
In somewhat similar facts and circumstances this Court has disposed of Writ Petition No.2085 of 2020 vide following orders passed on 17.02.2020:-
"The petitioners, who claim to be working as Staff Nurse on contractual basis, appeared for regular selection on the said post notified by the U.P. Public Service Commission. However, they were not successful, as they could not obtain the minimum aggregate marks prescribed by the Commission to judge the fitness for appointment. The prescription of minimum marks by the Commission was subject-matter of challenge before this Court in a bunch of petitions, the leading petition being Writ- A No. 20016 of 2018 (Sangeeta and 77 Others vs. State of U.P. and 4 Others), and other connected matters. The writ petition was allowed by a learned Single Judge by judgment dated 11.12.2018 and the prescription of minimum marks by the Commission was struck down. The matter was carried in special appeal by U.P. Public Service Commission. Special Appeal No. 142 of 2019 (U.P. Public Service Commission Vs. Sangeeta and 81 Others) filed by the U.P. Public Service Commission was allowed by this Court by the judgment dated 05.03.2019 and wherein it was held that the prescription of minimum aggregate marks was to judge the fitness of a candidate for appointment, which is the requirement under the Service Rules and consequently, the said exercise undertaken by the Commission could not be held to be illegal or arbitrary. Aggrieved thereby, the matter was carried in special leave petitions to the Supreme Court by the unsuccessful candidates. The Supreme Court by the order dated 19.07.2019, declined to go into the issue as to whether the action of the Commission in prescribing minimum marks was valid or not. However, the petitions were disposed of giving liberty to the petitioners to make appropriate representation. The relevant part of the order of the Supreme Court is quoted as under:-
"The special leave petitions are disposed of giving liberty to the petitioners to make appropriate representation before the concerned authorities to consider as to whether the petitioners could be treated as a separate class and their case be considered, as petitioners being the contractual employees.
Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of."
The petitioners claim that in terms of the order of the Supreme Court, they had represented before the State Government on 09.09.2019 but since no decision has been taken, therefore, the instant petition has been filed praying for a mandamus commanding the respondents to take decision in compliance of the order of the Supreme Court.
Learned Standing counsel very fairly states that in case no decision has been taken, the same shall be taken within such time as may be directed by this Court.
Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on merit of the case, the petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No. 3 (Director General Medial Health Services Department, U.P. at Lucknow) to take decision on the representation of the petitioners dated 09.09.2019 by means of a speaking order, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order."
Petitioner also claims to have represented his grievance before the authority competent. This writ petition is also disposed of in terms of the aforesaid order.
Order Date :- 12.1.2021
Ashok Kr.
