Court No. - 58
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 22509 of 2012 Petitioner :- Guru Prasad And Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Udai Narayan Khare,Ashish Kumar,Neeraj Kumar,Siddharth Khare Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
Petitioners had applied for appointment to the post of Assistant Operator at U.P. Police Radio Headquarter, pursuant to a recruitment exercise initiated in the year 2005-2006. Though the petitioner qualified the preliminary examination and physical test but could not clear the exam finally. They have filed this petition in the year 2012 for a direction to be issued to the respondents to allow the petitioner's to appear in the Interview for selection to the post in question.
The select list was published some time in the year 2006 itself. The select list was neither challenged then nor is under challenge even in this petition. However, it appears that certain other candidates raised their grievance against the select list published and it appears that some Enquiry Committee was constituted. In that enquiry it was found that certain deserving candidates were not allowed to appear in the interview while large number of undeserving candidates were given such an opportunity.
A writ petition was filed by one Vikrant Kumar Yadav being Writ- A No.7785 of 2009, wherein following orders were passed on 21.04.2011:-
"In the connected writ petition, a counter affidavit has been filed by the Home Secretary. It is admitted that there has been wrong feeding of the key answers in respect of the written examination held. This necessarily leads to incorrect marks being awarded to the candidates. However, in paragraph 10, it has been stated that a reply is still awaited from the Deputy Inspector General of Police for further action to be taken in the matter.
This Court is of the opinion that if the Deputy Inspector General of Police is not responding, the Home Secretary is not helpless. He must proceed with the matter. If wrong key answers have been feeded, he has an option of getting the answer sheets re-evaluated and thereafter to inform the Court qua the candidates who would not have been selected because of such re-evaluation and there who deserve to be selected category. An affidavit be filed by him by the next date indicating the action taken.
Let the matter be listed again on 19.5.2011."
Subsequently, notices were issued to other persons who were likely to be benefited in the matter.
The aggrieved persons, therefore, approached this Court by filing Special Appeal (Defective) No.1132 of 2011. The appellate Bench has stayed the direction issued by the learned Single Judge. This special appeal is stated to be pending even as on date.
It is in this context that petitioners' representation needs to be examined. The prayer in the writ petition is to direct respondents to hold petitioners' interview, as they were eligible to be called for interview, but were not permitted to do so. Counter affidavit has been filed opposing the claim in the writ petition.
Admittedly, the select list was declared in the year 2006 and is not a subject matter of challenge in this petition. Petitioners at that stage were neither aggrieved nor have approached this Cour. Merely because dispute was raised by certain other persons and the matter is pending before this Court in Special Appeal, it would not open for the petitioners to submit a fresh application for interview to be conducted for them.
Such a relief would otherwise not be permissible once the selected persons are not before the Court. The final select list was issued more than 12 years back. No mandamus can be issued to consider petitioners' claim, as is prayed for in this petition.
The writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 28.2.2019 Radhika