Allahabad High Court
Yogendra Pal Singh vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 23 May, 2023
Bench: Saurabh Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:113909
Court No. - 38
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5841 of 2023
Petitioner :- Yogendra Pal Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Abhishek Bhushan
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.
1. Heard Sri Adarsh Bhushan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rajesh Kumar Tiwari, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel.
2. The present petition has been filed seeking the following relief:-
"(a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 12.03.2020 (Annexure no.11 to this Writ Petition) passed by Respondent no.1.
(b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondents to permit the Petitioner to join on the post of Revenue Inspector (Kanungoo) at District- Badaun within a specified time as may be directed by this Hon'ble Court."
3. It is the case of the petitioner that he applied online on 19.09.2014 for the post of Revenue Inspector under the general category pursuant to the advertisement dated 16.09.2014 issued by the respondent no.3. Final select list of said recruitment was issued on 29.01.2016 in compliance of the judgment dated 21.12.2015 passed by a Division Bench of this Court and the name of the petitioner was found place in that select list at serial no.164 and proposed to be posted in Badaun.
4. When the petitioner was not permitted to join on the said post at Badaun, he filed representation on dated 30.11.2016 before the respondent no.2 and vide order dated 06.01.2017, the said representation preferred by the petitioner was forwarded to the District Magistrate, Badaun mentioning therein that although the petitioner was selected but he was not permitted to join on the post of Revenue Inspector at Badaun. Vide order dated 12.01.2017, the Additional District Magistrate, Badaun was also recommended the name of the petitioner for joining over the said post but no heed has been paid.
5. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid, the petitioner preferred Writ A No.6215 of 2019 which was decided on 22.04.2019 by a coordinate Bench of this Court directing the respondent no.1 to consider and decide the grievance of the petitioners, by a reasoned and speaking order within three months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of the order. When the order of Writ Court was not complied with, the petitioner preferred Contempt Application No.5412 of 2019 which was disposed of vide order dated 13.07.2020 wherein it was mentioned that the grievance of the petitioner has been redressed vide order dated 12.03.2020 through which the candidature of the petitioner has been rejected. The order dated 12.03.2020 has been challenged by the present petition.
6. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel vehemently opposed the prayer as made in the petition and on the basis of instructions, submits that the petitioner was not joined on the post of Revenue Inspector in the year 2016 and at present there is no post lying vacant pursuant to the advertisement notification which was issued on dated 16.09.2014. The said instructions are taken on record.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner raised his arguments on the basis of the result dated 22.02.2023 which has been notified by the respondent no.3 specifically for the post of Revenue Inspector in pursuance of the same examination wherein the petitioner has been declared successful.
8. By bare perusal of the order dated 22.02.2023 which is available at page 62 of the petition, it is crystal clearly proved that the vacancy for the post of Revenue Inspector is still vacant in pursuance of the recruitment examination for the post of Revenue Inspector which was held on 25.01.2015 and the result of the same was declared on 12.06.2015 in which the petitioner has been declared successful and as such, the instructions which have already been taken on record and submission of learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel is contrary to the factual position. As per the instructions, it has been apprised that no post is vacant and the entire procedure for selection carried out by the Commission has already been completed and there is hardly any scope available for consideration of the petitioner over the said post.
9. In view of the abovementioned facts and circumstance, the impugned order dated 12.03.2020 is hereby quashed and set aside. The respondent no.1 is hereby directed to reconsider the claim of the petitioner in light of the factual position, once the fresh result with regard to Scheduled Caste category for two posts has already been declared just before few months i.e. 22.02.2023 then under which circumstances, the case of the petitioner cannot be considered. The respondent no.1 is further directed to complete the aforesaid exercise for reconsidering the claim of the petitioner as expeditiously as possible, through proper intimation to the petitioner preferably within a period of two months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order before him.
10. The present petition stands allowed accordingly.
Order Date :- 23.5.2023
Vivek Kr.
