Court No. - 36
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7449 of 2021
Petitioner :- Hari Om Yadav
Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Petitioner :- Babu Ram Yadav,Pradeep Kumar Yadav
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,M.N. Singh,Nisheeth Yadav
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Nisheeth Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent- Commission/second respondent.
Petitioner is before this Court with a request commanding the respondents to give appointment to the petitioner against the vacancies which may remain unfilled on account of non joining of the selected candidate on the post of Food and Sanitary Inspector within stipulated period. With a further request directing the respondents to ascertain the vacancies which would remain unfilled on account of non joining of the selected candidates on the post of Food and Sanitary Inspector.
The record in question reflects that the respondent no. 2, U.P. Public Service Commission, Prayagraj had made an advertisement No. 3/2013-14, dt. 22.10.2013 against 128 posts of Sanitary and Food Inspector. The said post is created by the State Government under the provisions of Municipalities Act, 1916 and Municipalities Corporation Act, 1959. Admittedly, the petitioner applied in response to the aforesaid advertisement. The written test for the same has already been held on 22.3.2015 and the result was declared on 30.7.2015 in which petitioner was declared successful. The interview took place on 5.9.2018 but the petitioner could not find place in the final select list. In this backdrop, the aforementioned relief has been asked on the basis of an order dated 9.12.2020 passed by this Court in Writ A no. 11286 of 2020 (Shyam Kant Vs. State of U.P. and Another), which was disposed of asking the Secretary, U.P. Public Service Commission to decide the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law.
At the very outset, Sri Nisheeth Yadav has placed the detailed instructions dated 17.6.2021 sent by Under Secretary, U.P. Public Service Commission, Prayagraj. He has placed reliance upon paragraph 5 of the Government Order dated 31.1.1994 and paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Government Order dated 23.12.1997 and as such, he submits on the basis of aforesaid Government Orders, the relief as has been pressed before this Court, is not admissible and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
In order to appreciate the controversy in hand, it would be appropriate to have a glance of relevant paragraphs of both the Government Orders, which are reproduced herein below.
"¼5½ izrh{ kk l wp h d soy ,d o"kZ d s fy, oS/k gk sxh pkg s izfro"kZ gk su s okys izfr;k sf xrkRed ijh{ kk l s lEc af /kr gk s vFkok fdlh p;u fo'k s" k l sA dfri; ekeyk sa e sa ;g n s[k k x;k g S fd foHkkxk sa }kjk fu/kkZfjr vof/k d s vUnj vk;k sx l s izrh{ kk l wp h l s uke ek ax fy; s tku s ij Hkh vk;k sx }kjk fu/kkZfjr ,d o"kZ dh vof/k e sa izrh{ kk l wp h l s uke miyC/k ugh djk; s tkrs gSA vr% mDr leL;k d s lek/kku g srq ftu ekeyk sa e sa foHkkx }kjk fu/kkZfjr ,d o"kZ dh vof/k d s vUnj ;fn vk;k sx l s izrh{kk l wp h l s uke ek ax fy; s x; s gk sa] fdUrq vk;k sx u s fu/kkZfjr vof/k e sa uke miyC/k u djk;k gk s] , sl s ekeyk sa e sa izrh{ kk l wp h ,d o"kZ d s ckn Hkh oS/k gk sxhA 'kklukns'k la[;k& 28@5@80&dk&04&1997 fnukad 23-12-1997 ds izLrj&2 ,oa 3 esa fuEufyf[kr izkfo/kku gS%& 2& dfri; lzk srk sa l s ;g ftKklk dh tk jgh gS fd D;k dk;ZHkkj xzg.k dju s d s mijkUr] izrh{ kk l wp h dh oS/krk dh le;&lhek d s vUrxZr R;kxi= n s n su s d s dkj.k ?kfVr gk su s okyh s fjfDr d s fo:) izrh{kk l wp h l s fu;qfDr iznku dh tk ldrh gS\ 3& mi;q ZDr d s l ac a/ k e sa lE;d~ fopkjk sijkUr 'kklu }kjk fu.kZ; fy;k x;k g S] fd p waf d vH;FkhZ d s dk;ZHkkj xzg.k dju s d s mijkUr l ac af /kr fjfDr vkiwfjr@ lekIr gk s tkrh g S] vr% izrh{kk l wp h dh le; lhek d s vUrxZr Hkh R;kx i= n su s l s ?kfVr gk su s okyh fjfDr d s fo:) izrh{ kk l wp h l s fu;qfDr iznku ugh dh tk ldrh gSA "
In view of the above-quoted Government Orders, the Court is of the considered opinion that no positive direction can be issued to the respondent authorities.
The writ petition sans merit and is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 12.8.2021 A.K.Srivastava