JUDGMENT Anjani Kumar, J.
1. This writ petition was directed to be listed along with Writ Petition No. 25549 of 2002. For the sake of convenience the writ petitions are being taken up chronologically. The petitioner, Ram Singh Yadav has earlier filed Writ Petition No. 20229 of 2000 which was finally disposed off by this Court vide its order dated 2.5.2000 with the following directions:
"Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
With regard to his grievance the petitioner has already made a representation dated 16.12.1999, Anncxure-4 to the writ petition, before respondent.
This writ petition is finally disposed of with a direction to respondent to decide the petitioner's aforesaid representation by a speaking order, within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before him."
2. Pursuant to the aforesaid direction the representation filed by the petitioner, Ram Singh Yadav was disposed off by impugned order dated 8.8.2000 and 31.5.2001, copies whereof have been annexed as Annexures 6 and 12, passed in the present writ petition. Petitioner, Ram Singh Yadav filed one more Writ Petition No. 36179 of 2000 which was allowed by this Court on 18.4.2001 with the following directions "Heard Shri Sudhakar Pandey, learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel representing the respondents. The petitioner was appointed as Industrial Supervisor in Hathkargha Evam Vastroudhyog, U.P., by the order dated 4.8.2000 which order has been cancelled by the impugned order dated 8.8.2000 on the ground that the appointment was defective (Trutipurna). The defect has not been depicted in the order impugned herein. The reason which led to passing of the impugned order was referred to be recorded in separate office memorandum dated 8.8.2000 referred to in the impugned order but the same has not been brought on record. Undisputedly, the petitioner was not afforded any opportunity of showing cause nor was he served the said office memorandum dated 8.8.2000. which pointed out defects on the basis of which the appointment of the petitioner has been cancelled.
3. In Basudev Tiwari v. Sido Kanhu University and Ors., JT 1998(6) SC 464, it has been held that the question whether the appointment was illegal or defective should be decided without affording any opportunity of showing cause, In my opinion, the order impugned herein is liable to be quashed.
4. Accordingly, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 8.8.2000 is quashed without prejudice to the right of the competent authority to pass such order as it may deem fit and proper after affording an opportunity of showing cause to the petitioner. The petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefits.
5. The facts leading to filing of the aforesaid writ petitions are that the petitioner who belongs to Other Backward Class category applied pursuant to the advertisement dated 10.8.1998 issued by the respondent No. 1 for appointment to the post of Industrial Supervisor.
6. The admitted case of the parties is that one Rajesh Kumar Yadav who also belongs to Other Backward Class category has secured highest marks' amongst all categories and therefore, he was placed at Serial No. 1 amongst the General Category candidates. The petitioner, Ram Singh Yadav was selected and was placed at Serial No. 3 in the waiting list of Other Backward Class candidates. Rajesh Singh Yadav who was placed at Serial No. 1 in General Category, has resigned after the appointment. Thus, the petitioner, Ram Singh Yadav filed an application that since Rajesh Kumar Yadav has resigned, who belongs to Other Backward Class Category, the vacancy caused by his resignation namely resignation of Rajesh Kumar Yadav, should now be filled in from amongst the candidates of Other Backward Class category and petitioner being candidate belonging to Other Backward Class category, should be given appointment. It is this contention of petitioner Ram Singh Yadav led to filing of the two earlier writ petitions and the present writ petition.
7. After the order dated 8.8.2000 was quashed by this Court, the respondent pursuant to the direction issued by this Court afforded full opportunity to the petitioner and stated that according to the relevant Government Order since Rajesh Kumar Yadav was placed in the category of General Candidates, the vacancy caused due to resignation of Rajesh Kumar Yadav will be filled in amongst the candidates of waiting list of General Category and not amongst the candidates of waiting list of Other Backward Class category. In this view of the matter, the earlier letter of appointment issued in favour of the petitioner, Ram Singh Yadav deserves to be cancelled and is cancelled by the order dated 31.5.2001, which is subject matter of challenge of the present writ petition.
8. learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that the impugned order is illegal as according to him the provisions of Government Order dated 25.3.1994 are not applicable to the case of the petitioner, Ram Singh Yadav.
9. I have given my considered thought to the aforesaid argument and gone through the Government Order dated 25.3.1994 and in my opinion, the contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner, cannot be accepted, in as much as the impugned Government Order clearly demonstrates that if the vacancy of General Category candidate occurs during the lifetime of panel, the same shall be filled in amongst the waiting list of that particular category. Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav who has resigned and due to his resignation the vacancy occurred which has given rise to the filling of the present writ petition, has already been placed at Serial No. 1 of General Category candidates having secured highest marks, therefore, he ceases to be candidate belonging to Other Backward Class category. That being the factual and legal position, the claim of petitioner, Ram Singh Yadav cannot survive.
10. In view of above discussion, this writ petition deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.