Allahabad High Court
Mohammad Aqil And 3 Ors. vs State Of U.P. Thru ... on 18 January, 2023
Bench: Vivek Chaudhary
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?
Court No. - 4
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3840 of 2019
Petitioner :- Mohammad Aqil And 3 Ors.
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy.Sectt.Admin. Establishment Andanr
Counsel for Petitioner :- Mukteshwar Mishra,Alok Mishra,Amrendra Singh,Manish Kumar Rai
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Vivek Chaudhary,J.
Head Sri Manish Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the State.
Present petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 30.11.2018 contained as Annexure No.1 to the writ petition whereby issuance of appointment letters in favour of petitioners has been denied during the pendency of CBI inquiry with regard to the selection on the post of Additional Private Secretary in U.P. Civil Secretariat, Lucknow.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the controversy involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the judgment and order dated 03.11.2022 passed by this Court in Writ-A No.7618 of 2022; 'Surendra Nath Yadav and 4 Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others' and other connected matters. The aforesaid order reads as follows:-
"Since similar issue is involved in both the writ petitions, they are being decided by this common order.
For the sake of brevity, facts of Writ - A No.7618 of 2022 is being taken up.
Head learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State and Shri M.N. Singh, learned counsel for the respondent nos.2, 3 & 4.
Present petition has been filed stating that the petitioners had appeared in the examination conducted by the U.P. Public Service Commission in which 249 candidates were selected. The said candidates were not granted appointment initially on the ground that some CBI inquiry was pending with regard to the examination in question; subsequently 233 out of 249 candidates were issued appointment letter.
It is argued that one of the selectees namely Mohd. Aslam approached this Court by filing Writ - A No.5147 of 2018 wherein a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 7.2.2018 issued an ad interim mandamus commanding the respondents to issue appointment letter to the said petitioner namely Mohd. Aslam.
The counter affidavit filed by the State reveals that the said Mohd. Aslam has been issued appointment letter in pursuance to the ad interim mandamus issued by this Court.
In the present case, this Court had passed the following order on 25.5.2022:
"1. Heard Mr. C. B. Yadav, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Prem Prakash, the learned counsel for petitioners, the learned Standing Counsel representing respondent-1 and Mr. M.N. Singh, the learned counsel representing respondents- 2, 3 & 4.
2. Challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 25.11.2019 passed by respondent-4, the Examination Controller, U.P. Public Service Commission, U.P., Lucknow at Prayagraj whereby a decision has been taken to defer the recommendations of the commission on account of pendency of C. B. I. enquiry in respect of Selection made pursuant to Additional Private Secretary (General and Special Selection) (U.P. Secretariat) Examination 2010.
3. Learned Senior Counsel submits that pursuant to the aforesaid examination selections were made by U.P. Public Service Commission for 249 candidates. Out of 249 candidates so selected, 223 candidates have already been appointed. He has further invited attention of the Court to the order dated 07.02.2018 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in Writ A No. 5147 of 2018 (Mohd. Aslam Vs. State of U.P.), wherein a Division Bench of this Court has considered all other aspects of the matter and issued an interim mandamus commanding respondents to issue appointment letter to the selected candidate therein i.e. Mohd Aslam. According to learned Senior Counsel, pursuant to above order dated 07.02.2018, Mohd. Aslam, the writ petitioner in aforementioned writ petition has been issued appointment letter.
4. Mr. M. N. Singh, learned counsel representing respondents 2, 3 and 4 sought to justify the order impugned in present writ petition.
5. Having heard the learned senior counsel for petitioner, the learned standing counsel representing respondent-1, Mr. M. N. Singh, learned counsel representing respondents 2, 3 and 4 and upon perusal of records prima-facie, the court is of the opinion that there cannot be any justifiable reason for not recommending the names of petitioner by U.P. Public Service Commission when out of 249 candidates, 223 candidates have already been appointed.
6. In view of above, an interim mandamus is issued directing respondents to issue appointment letters to the petitioners on the post for which they were selected or to show cause on or before 07.07.2020.
7. Matter shall re-appear on 07.07.2022 as fresh."
It is argued that despite the ad interim mandamus, the appointment letters have not been issued to the petitioners solely on the reasoning that the CBI case is pending pertaining to the said examination.
Considering the averments made at the Bar, it is clear that the appointment letters have been issued to most of the selectees and the same has also been complied with in respect of Mohd. Aslam, thus, I do not see any reason for the State to withhold the appointment letter with regard to the petitioners herein.
At this stage, learned Standing Counsel states that the documents pertaining to the petitioners have not been forwarded by the U.P. Public Service Commission and the counsel appearing on behalf of the Commission states that certain formalities are to be completed in respect of petitioners.
It is, thus, directed that the U.P. Public Service Commission shall forthwith complete all the formalities in respect of the petitioners herein and shall transfer the same to the State Government who in turn shall issue the appointment letters to the petitioners in accordance with law as has been done in respect of other similarly placed students.
The said exercise shall be undertaken within three months from today.
Learned Standing Counsel as well as learned counsel for respondent nos.2, 3 & 4 shall forward a copy of this order to all concerned for its compliance.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed in above terms."
Learned Standing Counsel also admits that controversy involved in the present case is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment.
In view of the above, the impugned order dated 30.11.2018 is hereby quashed.
It is, further, directed that the State Government shall issue the appointment letters to the petitioners in accordance with law as has been done in respect of other similarly placed selected candidates, within three months from today.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed in above terms.
The appointments shall be subject to the conclusion of the CBI inquiry
Order Date :- 18.1.2023
Arti/-
[Vivek Chaudhary,J.]
