Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. It is further stated that on account of intervention made by the Apex Court as well as Government orders issued in connection of the aforesaid process of selection, the selection was stopped for quite long time, as a result of which large number of writ petitions were filed. In a leading writ petition No. 31852 of 2002 (Ajit Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. and Ors.) a learned Single Judge of this Court has directed the respondents of the aforesaid writ petition to complete the selection process initiated for filling the vacancies of Group 'C' posts in pursuance of said advertisement of the year 2001. It was specifically directed that where the select list were published, the respondents shall issue the appointment letters to the selected candidates by applying the roster for reservation in accordance with law, where the select list have not been published, those shall be published in accordance with the merit and the appointment orders shall be issued in accordance with law. It is also alleged that the petitioner has also filed Writ Petition No. 38258 of 2002 (Amit Kumar v. State of U.P. and Ors.), which has also been decided by learned Single Judge in a bunch of writ petitions decided on 4th October, 2002. Against the aforesaid judgment and order dated 4.10.2002 passed by Learned Single Judge of this Court a Special Leave Petition had been filed by State before the Supreme Court which was dismissed as withdrawn on 7.2.2003. Thereafter the State of U.P. has filed a Special Appeal before Division Bench of this Court which was numbered as Special Appeal No. 120 of 2003 (State of U.P. v. Amit Kumar Singh and Ors.), the aforesaid Special Appeal is time barred and till the date the delay in filing aforesaid Special Appeal has not even been condoned. It is further stated that the petitioners of the aforesaid writ petitions including the petitioner of instant writ petition have been compelled to file Civil Misc. Contempt Petition No. 742 of 2003 in which notices were issued by this Court on 26.3.2003, as such the State Government issued Radiogram on 5.4.2003 and thereafter issued an order on 12.4.2003. In pursuance of the aforesaid orders the district authorities of district Moradabad have proceeded to hold two further typing test in the month of April and May, 2003 in which additional candidates were called after lowering down the merit in the written examination. However in the typewriting test so held the petitioner was not called for participating therein as the petitioner was already qualified the typewriting test held on 22.12.2001. It is further stated that based upon the typewriting test held in April and May, 2003 the District Magistrate has appointed several candidates. However no appointment letter has been issued to the petitioner so far till the date. In paragraphs 30, 31, 32 and 33 of the writ petition it is further asserted that a total number of 11 posts of Junior clerks are still continuing to be vacant. Despite this the petitioner has not been offered any appointment and for filling the aforesaid 11 posts further typewriting test are scheduled to be held in third week of June, 2003 and there seems no justification for not offering the appointment to the petitioner who had been duly selected and had qualified the typewriting test held on 22.12.2001. Feeling aggrieved against the aforesaid inaction the petitioner moved several representations before the authorities but since no heed has been paid over the matter, therefore, the petitioner has been compelled to file above noted writ petition seeking direction in the nature of mandamus to appoint the petitioner as junior clerk in pursuance of the typewriting test qualified by the petitioner on 22.12.2001 and further to permit him to function as junior clerk under the respondents to pay his regular salary month to month on the post in question.

4. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. In paragraph 12 of the counter affidavit it is stated that the petitioner applied for the post of stenographer and gave his preference for appointment for the post of stenographer in different departments in accordance to his choice. In paragraph 13 of the counter affidavit it is stated that the petitioner was permitted for the test of stenography i.e. speed of shorthand writing and speed of typing. In paragraph 14 of the counter affidavit it is stated that the petitioner has failed to qualify the test held for the post of the stenographer. It is wrong to allege that the petitioner has qualified the test held for typist-cum-clerk. In paragraph 15 of counter affidavit it has been stated that the petitioner was never informed that he has been selected for the post of junior clerk/typist. The petitioner never applied for the post of typist as such there was no question of his selection as typist, In paragraph 16 of the counter affidavit it has been stated that the petitioner gave his order of preference in various departments in accordance to his choice for the post of stenographer not for the post of typist-cum-clerk and paragraph 17 of the counter affidavit it has been stated that the petitioner gave his preference in the department where the post of stenographers were vacant but the petitioner could not be appointed on the post of stenographer. In paragraph 18 of the counter affidavit it has been stated that Som Pal son of Mohan Lal who was allotted Roll No. 52005337 could not qualify the test for the post of stenographer but due to clerical mistake his name was included in the list of selected candidates of Typist/Clerk which has been withdrawn after scrutiny of the record. In this regard the necessary communication has been made by District Magistrate, Moradabad to the Joint Commissioner, Trade Tax, Moradabad vide his letter dated 19.12.2003. In pursuance there of the services of Sri Som Pal Singh has been terminated vide order dated 12th January, 2004. The copy of which have been filed as Annexures-C.A.-1 and C.A.-2 to the counter affidavit. The petitioner's first preference and remaining five preferences were for the post of appointment of stenographer but the petitioner could not succeed in the test of shorthand i.e. stenography so the appointment letter could not be issued to the petitioner as he was declared failed. In paragraphs 27 to 30 of the counter affidavit it is stated that in pursuance of the Government order the typewriting test has already been held and appointment letters have been issued to the candidates who were selected in the typewriting test and at present the process of selection is completely over and the selected persons were appointed. Since the petitioner was not selected as such no appointment letter could be issued to him. At present the process of selection has been completed and no post is lying vacant. In paragraphs 31, 33, 34 and 35 of the counter affidavit it is further stated that the petitioner has applied for the post of stenographer and gave his order of preference in different departments where the posts of stenographer were vacant. It is wrong to allege that petitioner applied for the post of clerk-cum-typist. The petitioner could not be declared selected in the test held for the post of stenographer so the appointment letter could not be issued to him. In pith and substance the stand taken by the respondents in the counter affidavit is that since the petitioner has applied only for the post of Stenographer and he has been failed in the test of shorthand and typewriting held for the post of Stenographer and did not apply for the post of junior clerk-cum-typist, therefore, the question for his consideration on the post of junior clerk-cum-typist does not arise.

22. The facts of the instant case are more or less identical to the facts of Ashok Alias Somanna Gowda's case (Supra). In this case petitioner alone appears to have challenged the aforesaid process of selection held by selection committee in District Moradabad in the year 2001. No other candidates feeling aggrieved against the aforesaid selection and appointment have approached this Court. A period of more than three years have been passed in respect of appointments made in the year 2001 against the vacancies in pursuance of advertisement in question. Therefore, it would not be appropriate to re-open the whole issue and grant relief to all those candidates who are not vigilant about their right. Thus the relief is to be limited in respect of the petitioner alone without disturbing the appointments made in the process of selection in the month of December, 2001 the respondents are directed to re-open the selection made in the month of April and May, 2003 and subsequent thereto in respect of remaining 11 vacancies which were advertised for the purpose of selection on 29.8.2001. While doing so, it would not be a difficult task for the selection committee to assess the comparative merit of petitioner in comparison to aforesaid candidates in respect of vacancies on the post of junior clerk-cum-typist and without disturbing all such candidates appointed. Only one candidate who is lowest in merit in the list of selected panel may be excluded from the select/merit list if all the vacancies advertised have been filled up. If any of the aforesaid advertised vacancy still remains unfilled, it would not be appropriate to exclude and cancel the appointment of any person on account of selection and appointment of petitioner made by the selection committee. Therefore, the selection committee is directed to undertake the aforesaid exercise keeping the view in mind the observation made above. If the petitioner is found otherwise suitable according to law and on a medical and character verification made after completion of process of selection found fit for appointment, the appointing authority is directed to issue letter of appointment in favour of petitioner to the post of junior clerk in any of the offices of district in respect of which vacancies were advertised, according to the choice indicated by him in the order of preferences given by him and his merit position in the selection list. If it is found that the original record of process of selection of typewriting test is not available or not feasible to trace it out within short span of time, the District Magistrate, Moradabad is directed to constitute a selection committee in accordance with rules and petitioner may be called to appear in typewriting test by affording him one month's time from the date of the communication made to him indicating the aforesaid intention and thereafter subsequent steps may be taken in furtherance of process of selection and appointment, according to the observation made above. The District Magistrate, Moradabad is directed to undertake the aforesaid exercise within a further period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order before him.