The petitioner has filed this petition questioning the correctness of the Office Memorandum dated 4th July 2005 as communicated through Letter dated 12.12.2006 whereby the selections held in 1999, the results whereof were declared in 2003 on Class IV posts of Peon/Runner/Ferro Boy have been cancelled.
The petitioner was an applicant under the scheduled caste category and is alleged to have been selected. The petitioner had applied against Advertisement No. 2 of 1998 for the post in question 118 posts had been advertised for being filled up as backlog vacancies of the reserved category. The Interview for the said posts was held in the year 1999 but the results were not finally declared.
It appears from the records that with the creation of the State of Uttaranchal, certain castes and tribes whose population had been altered in the State of U.P., required refixation of the percentage of scheduled castes and scheduled tribes and their identification. There was a ban also imposed for future appointments keeping in view the directions issued by the Uttar Pradesh Backward Commission. Thus, practical and legal impediments had arisen as a result whereof the aforesaid selections could not be finalized.
The petitioner has alleged that the results were finally declared on 23rd August 2003 and the petitioner was declared to be a successful candidate. Consequential orders were also issued but no joining was permitted.
A couple of the selectees namely Raguvar Dayal Raman and Babadin filed writ petitions being Writ Petition No. 2488 of 2004 and 2489 of 2004 before the Lucknow Bench of this Court. Directions were issued to consider their grievances and on failure to do so a contempt petition no. 78 of 2005 was filed in which notices were issued on 11th May 2005. The aforesaid two selectees were permitted to join subject to the orders passed by the Lucknow Bench of this Court.
The petitioner contends that he is similarly situate as Raghuvar Dayal and Babadin and therefore the same relief should be granted to the petitioner. The petitioner has described the appointment and continuance order of the aforesaid two persons through a supplementary rejoinder affidavit which is on record.
The stand taken by the respondents in their counter affidavit is that the matter was deliberated upon by the Power Corporation and in consultation with the State Government it was decided to cancel the selections inasmuch as with the reorganization of the State the representation of scheduled tribes and scheduled castes would not be adequately met with and therefore the selections held, deserved to be cancelled.
The decision was taken on 4th July 2005 by the Corporation which is impugned in the present writ petition. It was however clarified that in case any future appointments or selections are held, the petitioner would be considered without any requirement to file a fresh application.
I have heard Sri Ranjit Saxena learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Pankaj Kumar Shukla for the respondent Corporation.
Upon exchange of affidavits, the situation that emerges is, that with regard to the same selections which have been cancelled on 4th July 2005, one Chandra Pal filed Writ Petition No. 5024 of 2005 which has been dismissed by this Court on 6th March 2006 holding that the cancellation order does not suffer from any infirmity and further that the selectees have no right to claim appointment inasmuch as mere selection does not confer any right of appointment. The aforesaid judgment still holds the field and nothing has been brought to the notice of the Court reversing the same. In such a situation, the aforesaid judgment by a coordinate bench being binding and no further reason having been shown to differ with the same, the claim raised by the petitioner also deserves to receive the same fate.
Sri Ranjit Saxena learned counsel for the petitioner then submitted that in relation to Class III employees, such a selection which was cancelled, came to be challenged in Writ Petition No. 46362 of 2004 Manoj Kumar and others Vs. State of U.P. and others. Relying on the judgment in the said writ petition, which was ultimately allowed, Sri Saxena submits that for the same reasons the order dated 4th July 2005 deserves to be quashed. He further submits that the aforesaid judgment of the learned Single Judge in the case of Manoj Kumar (supra) has been upheld in Special Appeal No. 107 of 2008.
I have perused the judgment of the Division Bench which clearly records that the Power Corporation had not challenged the judgment of the learned Single Judge on merits and it was only against that part of the judgment which had awarded consequential relief. It is, therefore, clear that firstly, the dispute related to Class III employees and the impugned order therein proceeded on different considerations. Secondly, the said judgment was not assailed by the Power Corporation on merits and had been accepted by them. For the aforesaid reasons, the judgment cannot be of any persuasive value so far as the present case is concerned, more so when on an identical issue this Court has already dismissed Writ Petition No. 5024 of 2005 in the case of Chandra Pal Singh (supra).
The other contention of Sri Ranjit Saxena with regard to the parity of Raghuvar Dayal and Babadin cannot be accepted, inasmuch as, it is on the strength of some alleged orders of this Court that they have been permitted to join. No other example has been cited about such candidates, who were allegedly selected in the results declared on 23.8.2003, to have been offered appointment by the Power Corporation on its own.
The directions, if any, issued by the Lucknow Bench or the compliance made by the Power Corporation as an interim measure therefore cannot act as a precedent as it does not contain any cogent reason nor the appointments of the said persons are founded on any independent decision taken by the Power Corporation. There is nothing on record to indicate that those persons have been extended benefit by the Lucknow Bench on the basis of any final decision. The respondents may either on account of some order of threat of contempt or for some vague reason have offered appointment to the persons, which in my opinion, does not form a precedent so as to treat the said action to be an act bringing about hostile discrimination that may create any right in the petitioners.
The judgment relied upon by Sri Saxena in the case of State of Karnataka and others Vs. C. Lalitha, reported in (2006) 2 SCC Pg. 747 therefore does not come to the aid of the petitioner. The said judgment holds that persons who are similarly situate should be treated similarly irrespective of the fact that such persons have approached the Court or not. The Supreme Court in Para 29 of the said judgment has indicated the dispute relating to seniority which is not the case here. In the instant case no right has been recognised in favour of Raghuvar Dayal or in favour of Babadin nor has the cancellation order date 4th July 2005 been taken notice of. In such a situation the aforesaid decision cannot be invoked for the purpose of violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
It is admitted to the petitioner that advertisements have again been made and fresh appointments made on 11th August 2009. In such a situation and in view of the conclusions drawn herein above no relief can be granted to the petitioner.
The writ petition lacks merit and is hereby dismissed.
Dt. 30th September, 2010 Sahu