Allahabad High Court
Shikhar Agrawal vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 23 September, 2020
Bench: Shashi Kant Gupta, Sanjay Kumar Pachori
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Court No. - 32 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5576 of 2020 Petitioner :- Shikhar Agrawal Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Siddharth Khare Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashish Mishra,M.N. Singh,Rahul Srivastava Hon'ble Shashi Kant Gupta,J.
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.
(Delivered By Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J) This writ petition is being disposed of finally at the stage of admission with the consent of learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition has been filed, inter-alia, for the following reliefs:-
i. issue a writ, order, or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent authorities to fill the post of Civil Judge ( Junior Division ) under General Category pursuance to Advertisement dated 29.7.2016 from 10 % waiting list envisaged under Rule 20(3) of U.P. Judicial service ( Second Amendment ) Rules, 2012.
Heard Sri Sidharth Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Rahul Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent no.3 and Sri Deepak Mishra, learned A.G.A.
The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner stating therein that the respondent no.1 had issued an advertisement (Annexure No.1) dated 11.09.2018 inviting application from eligible candidates for U.P. Judicial Service Civil Judge (Junior Division) Examination, 2018 (hereinafter referred to as "Examination, 2018"). The total number of vacancies advertised were 610 across all categories. The recruitment to the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) is governed by Uttar Pradesh Judicial Services Rules, 2001 ( Annexure No.2) ( hereinafter referred to as "Rules").The final result of Examination was declared on 20.07.2019 in which cutoff marks for General Category was 560 wherein the petitioner had obtained 559 marks (Annexure Nos. 5 and 6 respectively). The following candidates of aforesaid "Examination, 2018" have already been selected under General Category on the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) pursuant to the advertisement dated 11.09.2018:-
Serial No. Name of the Candidates Roll number of the candidates ( In U.P.)
1.
Abhinav Singh 049571
2. Shivangi Vyas 032535
3. Arvind Dev 003769
4. Shruti Jain 017455
5. Harshvardhan Dhakar 000586
6. Surbhi Singhania 008854
7. Kumar Shivam 009084
8. Preeti 000420
9. Ruchi Kaushik 040957
10. Ajeet Kumar Mishra 013651 The learned counsel for the petitioner further states that the candidate mentioned at Serial Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 8 of the aforesaid list have already joined in Delhi Judicial Services, the candidates mentioned at serial nos. 4 and 5 have joined in M.P. Judicial Services, the candidates mentioned at serial nos. 6 and 7 have also joined Bihar Judicial Service and the candidates mentioned at Serial Nos. 9 and 10 of the aforesaid list have also been selected elsewhere. By means of an application dated 17.09.2019 under Right to Information Act, the petitioner sought information regarding his placement in waiting list but no such information has been supplied to the petitioner. The petitioner filed an appeal on 11.11.2019 but the said appeal has not been decided till date. The respondents have also not cancelled the candidature of the candidates, who failed to join the post as advertised above. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment rendered another Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Nadeem Anwar Vs. State of U.P. and another (2016) 2 UPLBEC 1391 and argued that the respondent no. 2 has not prepared any waiting list as envisaged under Rule 20 sub-rule (3) of the second Amendment of U.P. Judicial Service Rules, 2012 and to fill up the vacancies rendered vacant on account of non-joining of the selected candidates within a specified period. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the judgment passed in Writ A No. 1641 of 2020, Ritu Chaudhary and two others Vs. State of U.P. decided on 31.1.2020. Learned counsel for the respondents despite advancing elaborate arguments, have failed to show that any waiting list as contemplated under Section 20 sub-section (3) of the amended rules has been prepared In order to appreciate the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties , it would be useful to extract Rules 20 and 21 of the Rules herein below :
"20. List of candidate approved by the Commission.- (1) After the result of written examination is prepared, the Commission shall call for interview such number of candidates, who in the opinion of the Commission have secured minimum marks as may be fixed by the Commission in this respect.
(2) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any rules or orders, the Commission shall invite a sitting Judge of the Court to be nominated by the Chief Justice to participate in the interview of the candidates called under sub-rule (1) and the opinion given by him with regard to the suitability of the candidates shall not be disregarded by the Commission unless there are strong and cogent reasons for not accepting the opinion which reasons must be recorded in writing by the Commission.
(3) The Commission then shall prepare a final list of selected candidates in order of their proficiency as disclosed by aggregate of marks finally awarded to each candidate in the written examination and the interview.
Note-- The wait list shall be prepared category-wise, i.e. for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other categories. The wait-list shall be utilized only in case, the candidates in the select list do not join the posts and shall not utilized for any subsequent vacancies. Provided that if two or more candidates obtain equal marks in the aggregate, the name of the candidate being elder in age, shall be placed higher:
Provided further that if two or more candidates of equal age obtain equal marks in the aggregate, the name of the candidate, who has obtained higher marks in the written examination, shall be placed higher.
21. Appointment to the service.- (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-rule (2), the Governor shall, on receipt of the list of candidates submitted by the Commission under sub-rule (3) of Rule 20, make appointment on the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) in the order in which their names are given in the list provided the Governors is satisfied that the Candidate is otherwise qualified and entitled for such appointment under these rules. (2) The select list prepared under sub-rule (3) of Rule 20 shall lapse after all the vacancies advertised or varied after due notification, are filled up."
There is nothing on record which may indicate that in terms of Rule 20(3) of the "Rules",the vacancies which remain underutilized due to non-joining of the candidates, as mentioned in the list, have been released by a subsequent recruitment. In view of the above, we dispose of the writ petition with the following directions to respondent no. 2 (U.P. Public Service Commission ):-
i) That the Commission shall forward the list of wait listed candidates against each category, keeping vertical and horizontal reservation in mind within 30 days from the date of filing of certified copy of this order before it.
ii) Further, if such posts have not been utilized in any subsequent recruitment, the commission shall fill up the said posts strictly in accordance with the Uttar Pradesh Judicial Services Rules, 2001, which could not be filled up, in order to merits of the wait listed candidates, within a further period of 60 day and submit compliance report to the Registrar General of this Court within 75 days from today.
With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition, is, finally disposed of. Order Date :- 23.9.2020 aks