Court No. - 34
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 697 of 2014 Petitioner :- Keshav Das Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Virendra Singh,Mamta Sen Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.
The challenge in the instant petition is to an order of 28 July 2012. The petitioner is principally aggrieved by the appointment of the fifth respondent on the post of sweeper. The principal allegation was that he had never applied for appointment on the post of sweeper and although the petitioner and others had participated in the selection process, their candidature was wrongfully denied. The office report indicates that notices had been duly sent to the fifth respondent but despite a long period of time having expired, none has entered appearance on his behalf. Notice upon the said respondent is thus liable to be deemed to be sufficient.
The respondents in their counter affidavit have referred to the application which was submitted by the respondent No. 5, which ex facie establishes that he had submitted the same for consideration of his appointment either on the post of Mali/Chaprasi/Sweeper. The contention therefore that the private respondent had not applied for the post of sweeper cannot be accepted. It is further disclosed that as many as 56 candidates were interviewed for appointment against the aforesaid posts including the petitioner and the fifth respondent here. The list of persons interviewed and duly maintained has also been placed on the record. In view of the aforesaid facts, the principal ground of challenge cannot be countenanced. Learned counsel has then placed reliance upon certain disclosures stated to have been made by the City Magistrate while responding to certain applications made before him under the Right to Information Act, 2005. Regard must be had to the fact that the selection process was initiated by the respondent Medical College and it was that entity which had undertaken the selection process and appointed the fifth respondent. The Court fails to recognize any right inhering in the City Magistrate to provide information in respect of a selection process which was initiated by the Medical College concerned.
Consequently, the writ petition fails and is dismissed.
Order Date :- 28.9.2021 Arun K. Singh