Allahabad High Court
Kaushal Kishor And Another vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 3 September, 2020
Author: Prakash Padia
Bench: Prakash Padia
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 4 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6895 of 2020 Petitioner :- Kaushal Kishor And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shikher Trivedi,Sumant Krishna Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Siddharth Singhal Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.
Heard Sri Shikher Trivedi, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Siddharth Singhal, learned counsel for the respondents no.1 and 2.
Petitioners are before this Court with a request commanding the respondents not to carry forward posts. With a further request to issue appointment letter in favour of the petitioners against the posts on which the candidates have not joined.
The matter relates to the appointment of Tubewell Operator (General Selection) 2016 for which an advertisement No. 15(3)/2016 has been issued by the U.P.Subordinate Service Selection Commission. Admittedly, all the petitioners have applied pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement. Initially, the result of 3210 candidates was declared on 27.6.2019 and they were called for documents verification. It has been claimed that out of 3210, 614 posts remained vacant as 614 candidates did not turn up for documents verification. Consequently, the Commission on 13.9.2019 again called 743 candidates for documents verification against 614 vacant posts by decreasing minimum qualifying marks. It has been claimed that the roll numbers of the petitioners are lying the said second list. Further, the Commission has also published third list on 16.11.2019 and declared final result on 27.11.2019.
In this backdrop, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were called for document verification and all formalities were completed within time, therefore, they are deemed to be selected against vacant posts as some of the candidates who were higher in merit, were not joined. He further submits that the authorities are interested to carry forward the remaining vacant post, which is not permissible under law. In this regard, petitioners have already represented to the authorities as they are within the zone of consideration and their documents have already been tested and as such they may be given appointment against the candidates who have not joined on the aforesaid post and this Court should come forward to rescue them.
On the other hand, Sri Siddharth Singhal raised an objection that so far as the third respondent is concerned, the same is only a recruitment body and once the recruitment process has been completed and the recommendation has been made to the State Government, whatever the decision has to be taken that is at the end of the State Government.
In view of the aforementioned discussion, without entering into merits of the case, the Court is also of the considered opinion that in case any vacancy available qua to the aforesaid post and petitioners fall in zone of consideration as per law, definitely, their claim ought to be considered by the competent authority. Accordingly, the first respondent is directed to proceed and pass an appropriate order as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of four weeks from today.
With the aforesaid direction, the present writ petition is disposed of finally.
The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the petitioners alongwith a self attested identity proof of the said persons (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number to which the said Aadhar Card is linked.
The concerned Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerised copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
Order Date :- 3.9.2020 Pramod Tripathi