Court No. - 34
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 35644 of 2004 Petitioner :- Chain Shukh Mishra And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- S.C.Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate,R D Khare,S.C.
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.
1. Called in revise. None appeared to press this writ petition. Learned Standing Counsel is present for respondents. In the circumstances, I myself have perused the record.
2. By means of present writ petition, petitioners have sought following reliefs:
“i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents for taking the process of selection for direct recruitment on the posts of Lineman in accordance with the provisions of rule-3 (2-A) (a) of Indian Electricity Rules, 1956, as well section 22 (2) of the 'Act of 1961' and various Government issued by the State Government on 12.09.96, 03.01.1998 and 24.03.2000.
ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents for making recruitment on the posts of Lineman by way of direct recruitment from amongst the apprentices Trainees.
iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus Commanding the respondents to appoint the petitioners on existing vacancies of Lineman without any examination within the reasonable time prescribed by this Hon'ble Court.
iv) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus to the respondents restraining them under taking the process of direct selection on the posts of Lineman against the provisions contained in the Rule 3(2-A)(a) of Indian Electricity Rules, 1956 from the open market till the disposal of the case by this Hon'ble Court.”
3. I myself have gone through the pleadings, grounds as also reliefs sought and find that petitioners are not able to make out a case so as to justify interference of this Court by granting reliefs, as prayed for.
4. Moreover, it appears that either the cause of action no more survives or the petitioners have lost interest in this matter or it has otherwise become infructuous and, probably for this reason, none is interested to have decided this matter on merits and that is why, counsel for petitioners is absent.
5. Dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
Order Date :- 24.8.2018 PS