Allahabad High Court
Gajendra Singh And Ors. vs State Of U.P. And Ors. on 7 February, 2002
Equivalent citations: 2002(3)AWC2130
Author: R.B. Misra
Bench: R.B. Misra
JUDGMENT R.B. Misra, J.
1. There are two Writ Petition Nos. 24518 of 1996 and 24261 of 1996 filed by the petitioners, by consent of the parties both the writ petitions are decided by a common judgment. Writ Petition No. 24518 of 1996 being leading case.
2. In the writ petition, prayer has been made to issue an order, direction or writ of certiorari quashing the selection list dated 30.11.1999 (Annexure-1), from serial Nos. 453 to 593 published by the respondent No. 5 and has further sought writ of mandamus directing the respondents to make fresh appointment to the post of Warder in Jail of Agra Range.
3. Heard Sri Satish Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned standing counsel for the State.
4. The relevant facts necessary for adjudication of the cases are that for appointment to the post of Warders in Agra Central Jail, an advertisement was issued on 12.9.1995, the petitioners participated in the selection and the final selection list was prepared wherein, the petitioners were not selected. Being aggrieved they have challenged the selection list on the ground that unsuitable candidates including physically and mentally unfit persons have been selected by pick and choose method and the petitioners were not given opportunity of appearing in physical and intelligent test.
5. The counter-affidavit has been filed where in para 3 of the same, it has been stated that for the year 1995, the appointing authority, i.e., Senior Superintendent of Jail, Central Jail, Agra, notified the vacancies in the Warders cadre in pursuance to the order passed by I.G. (Prision), a selection committee was duly constituted in accordance to the G.O. No. 282 Warder-1-90-138(1)-61 dated 9th October, 1990.
6. The following were nominated as members of the selection committee :
(1) A candidate nominated by the I.G. (Prision), as President. (2) Senior Superintendent of Central Jail/Mandal Jail as Member. (3) Any Superintendent of Mandal Jail duly nominated by I.G. (Prision) as member. (4) Dy. C.M.O. Nominated by C.M.O.--Member.
Apart from this, the C.M.O., Agra vide his letter dated 31.10.1995 nominated Dr. Ram Mohan, Dy. C.M.O. as member of the selection committee. The selection committee examined and checked the physical fitness of the candidates and thereafter the candidates were also interviewed by the selection committee and those who were having required minimum qualifications and other eligibility along with physical fitness were selected and on the basis of selection made by the selection committee, only suitable and eligible candidates as per G.O. dated 9.10.1990 were appointed to the posts of Warders.
7. According to para 5 of the counter-affidavit, the persons having requisite qualifications and eligibility as per G.O. dated 9,10.1990, have been selected by the selection committee and those unsuitable, lacking requisite physical fitness were neither selected nor appointed to the post of Warders. The physical test was conducted from 1.11.1995 to 12.11.1995 and interview was held from 15.11.1995 to 21.11.1995 and successful candidates were included in the list for appointments/ recruitments to the post of Warders in accordance with the law. There is no provision for written examination for appointment to the post of Warders.
8. In para 7 of the counter-affidavit, it is stated that Suresh Chandra Upadhya and Sri Gyan Prakash were found physically fit as per report of C.M.O., Agra, therefore, they were selected and appointed.
9. The petitioners have reiterated their earlier averments in the rejoinder-affidavit and two supplementary-affidavits.
10. The petitioners have asserted in their affidavit filed at subsequent stage that the requirement and formalities of the selection have not been complied with in case of many of the selected candidates. However, the petitioners have not arrayed, those candidates party in the writ petition. The petitioners appeared and participated in the selection and have failed. Therefore, the petitioners have no occasion to challenge such selection which has already been completed.
11. A person, who appeared in the selection but was not selected could not turn back to challenge the selection as held by Supreme Court in Swaran Lata v. Union of India, (1979) 2 SCR 953.
12. Neither any illegality nor any irregularity has been committed in making such selection and appointment. The entire selection and appointment proceedings are perfectly just, fair and legal.
13. I have gone through the averments made in the writ petition and the counter-affidavit as well as the supplementary-affidavit, I do not find any illegality and error with the selection process, therefore, the prayers made in the writ petition cannot be granted as such the writ petition is dismissed.