Allahabad High Court
Prabhu Narayan Upadhyay And ... vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... on 2 December, 2022
Bench: Manish Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 20
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8139 of 2022
Petitioner :- Prabhu Narayan Upadhyay And Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Rural Developmnent U.P. Civil Secrett. Lko. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Himanshu Raghave,Aditya Vikram Shahi
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Gaurav Mehrotra
Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.
1. The present writ petition has been preferred for quashing of the requisition for 2112 vacant posts of Village Development Officer sent by the Commissioner, Rural Development, U.P., Lucknow i.e. respondent no. 2 to the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Service Selection Commission, i.e. respondent no. 3 vide its letter dated 13.04.2022 in so far as if unreasonably and arbitrarily includes the unfilled post notified under the advertisement dated 18.01.2016 for direct recruitment on 3133 posts of Village Development Officer, even when the Hon'ble Court is seized with various writ petitions of meritorious candidates.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners had appeared in the selection in pursuance of the advertisement published in the year 2016 for selection on the post of Village Development Officer. In the written examination, the marks has wrongly been given as the answer in the answer key was not correct. Under these circumstances, the petitioner no. 1 has filed a writ petition i.e. W.P. No. 8203 (SS) of 2021 which was dismissed by this Court vide its judgment and order dated 23.03.2021. Against which a review application was preferred which was also rejected by this Court vide its judgment and order dated 02.09.2021. Against which, the petitioner no. 1 has preferred a Special Appeal No. 354 of 2021 in which the petitioner /appellant was granted time to make necessary amendment in the Special Appeal and also directed the respondents to file an affidavit stating therein that as to whether the benefit of marks as is being prayed for the appellant, if given, will entitle him to seek selection/appointment or not.
3. It is further submitted that the petitioner no. 2 has also filed a writ petition i.e. W.P. No. 5841 (SS) of 2019 in which a detailed order has been passed on 22.07.2021 directing the respondents to file their counter affidavit. It is further submitted that the requisition sent by respondent no. 2 to the respondent no. 3 is by mis-applying the horizontal reservation which may affect the right of the petitioners to be considered for appointment on the post of Village Development Officer, if they succeed in their writ petition or the Special Appeal which are pending before this Court.
4. It is further submitted that the State Government has filed the counter affidavit in one of the writ petitions pending at Allahabad and in the writ petition filed by petitioner no. 2 mentioning therein that there is no vacancy left on which the appointment of the petitioners could be considered. It is further submitted that if the vacancies were not available then how they have added the vacancies of the year 2016 in the requisition dated 13.04.2022.
5. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel and learned counsel representing the respondent no. 3 have submitted that the Special Appeal of petitioner no. 1 is pending before this Court and if the petitioner wants that one post may be kept reserved for him, he may file an appropriate application in the Special Appeal in place of filing the present writ petition.
6. It is further submitted that the writ petition filed by petitioner no. 2 is pending and in that also, the petitioner no. 2 may file an application for further interim relief for keeping one post reserved for him. It is further submitted that neither in the Special Appeal nor in the writ petition preferred by the petitioners nos. 1 & 2 respectively, any interim order has been granted by this Court. It is further submitted that 70 posts of the selection made in the year 2016 has been reserved while sending the requisition as there are interim orders for keeping the post reserved in cases of those petitioners whereas there is no such order in favour of the present petitioners.
7. It is further submitted that it is a requisition not an advertisement. The advertisement gives a right to a candidate to challenge any illegality in the advertisement, otherwise the candidate has no right to challenge the requisition forwarded by the Department to the Commission.
8. After considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and going through the record of this case, the position which emerges out is that it is the requisition order dated 13.04.2022 which is under challenge by the petitioners seeking a relief that the post on which the petitioners would be appointed in case their cases are allowed and selected, those posts shall not be included in the requisition for that the petitioners are having an appropriate remedy to move an application in the pending cases filed by them in place of filing the present writ petition. It is a requisition which was forwarded by the Department and till date the advertisement has not been published.
9. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, the present writ petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed.
10. It will however be open to the petitioners to move an application for interim relief, if so advised, in the writ petition/Special Appeal pending before this Court.
Order Date :- 2.12.2022
Nitesh
