The petition seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing impugned orders dated 07.02.2017 and 01.01.2020 passed by respondent no.2, which are appended with the petition as Annexurs - 1 & 2.
The petition also seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondent no.2 to appoint the petitioner on the post of Lekhpal under reserved category of partial deaf from the date of 30.06.2016.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in July, 2015, an advertisement was issued by the Board of Revenue, U.P. under the Head of "Lekhpal Bharti Pariksha 2015" of Lekhpals for the vacancies of 13600 posts in all over State which were distributed in all the districts in Uttar Pradesh. It is submitted that out of 13600 posts, 231 posts were allowed for District Lakhimpur Kheri.
Learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner applied for the said post under the reserved category (partial deaf) for which essential qualification was Intermediate from U.P. Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad or its parallel from any other institutions.
It is submitted that the petitioner appeared for the written examination and got the qualifying marks. Thereafter, the petitioner was invited for interview by Collector/Chairman, Selection Committee, District Lakhimpur Kheri vide letter dated 08.02.2016. It is submitted that the petitioner appeared before the interview Board alongwith all the documents including the Disability Certificate issued by office of Chief Medical Officer, Lakhimpur Kheri.
Learned counsel has submitted that when final result was declared, the petitioner's name was not found in the list of qualified candidates. Learned counsel has alleged several irregularities done by the selection committee in preparing the select list.
Learned counsel has submitted that a writ petition was filed by one Shri Manjesh Kumar bearing Writ Petition No.10346 (SS) of 2016 by which selection process of Lekhpal Bharti Pariksha 2015 was challenged wherein vide order dated 27.05.2016, the Court, while listing the matter for next date, directed for placing the decision of the committee before it. In pursuance of the said order, a three member committee was constituted at district level under the chairmanship of Additional Collector F/R Kheri and two other members.
It is submitted that the aforesaid committee found several irregularities and illegalities in the final result of Lekhpal Bharti Pariksha 2015. It is submitted that the committee found that in pursuance of advertisement, total seven candidates were to be selected under the category "partial deaf" but after verifying their medical certificates only two candidates were found fit under the partial deaf category and rest five posts remained vacant due to unavailability of suitable candidate.
Learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner's candidature has not been considered properly and the same is not as per norms of order dated 03.02.2008 including the procedure issued in the Government Orders dated 29.12.2005 and 26.04.2006.
Learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner had filed a petition bearing Writ Petition No. 30142 of 2016, which was disposed of vide order dated 23.12.2016 with direction to the petitioner to make a fresh representation before respondent no.2/District Magistrate, District Lakhimpur Kheri and the said authority was directed to decide the representation in accordance with law.
Learned counsel has submitted that in pursuance of the aforesaid order, the petitioner made a detailed representation which was rejected by the concerned authority vide impugned order dated 07.02.2017. It is submitted that the petitioner again went to District Hospital, Lakhimpur Kheri to get his hearing capacity tested/checked-up, from where he was referred to King George Medical University (KGMU). It is submitted that doctor of KGMU certified that the petitioner has lost hearing and as per norms, he was declared deaf. It is submitted that the petitioner again approached the concerned authority alongwith medical certificate issued by KGMU but vide the impugned order dated 01.01.2020, his representation has been rejected.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is poor person and unemployed, and since he is eligible candidate for consideration under disabled category, therefore, rejection of candidature vide orders dated 07.02.2017 and 01.01.2020 without taking into consideration certain facts is illegal and arbitrary.
In view of the above, the petitioner has prayed that both the impugned orders may be quashed and the respondent/State may be directed to consider candidature of the petitioner under the category of the disabled person for appointment on the post of Lekhpal in pursuance of Lekhpal Bharti Pariksha 2015.
Per Contra, learned counsel for the State has vehemently opposed the submissions made by petitioner's counsel and submitted that the representation of the petitioner made in pursuance of order dated 23.12.2016 passed in Writ Petition No.30142 (SS) of 2016 has already been rejected vide order dated 07.02.2017 passed by competent authority, which has never been challenged before any Court of law.
Learned counsel has vehemently submitted that that is no justification as to why the petitioner did not approach the Court when his first representation was rejected vide order dated 07.02.2017. Therefore, there is no occasion for the petitioner to move second representation relying upon certain medical certificate while the consequence of first representation has not been challenged ever.
It is submitted that the petitioner, now after more than five years, has filed the instant writ petition for getting employment for which advertisement was issued in the year 2015 and all procedure for recruitment has already been completed. In such circumstances, it is submitted that the instant petition be dismissed on the ground of delay.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
Perusal of the impugned order dated 07.02.2017 (supra) reveals that as per Point No.7 of Government Order No.18/1/08-ka-2-2008 dated 03.02.2008, deafness means a loss of 60 decibels or more in superior ear of the communicative range. It is also evident from the impugned order that as per PTA/BERA report of the petitioner, loss of hearing capacity of left ear of the petitioner is 80 decibels and right ear is 28.3 decibels. Thus, while considering the medical report of the petitioner in conjunction with aforesaid government order, it is evident that loss of hearing capacity in superior ear of the petitioner is only 28.3 decibels against the prescribed range of 60 decibels, therefore, he is not eligible to be appointed under the category of disabled person.
So far as impugned order dated 01.01.2020 is concerned, it is an admitted case that order dated 07.02.2017 has never been challenged in any Court of law. There is no justification as to why the petitioner did not approach the Court when his first representation was rejected. Mere filing a second representation on the basis of certain document cannot supersede the decision passed on earlier occasion, if the earlier decision has not been challenged in any Court of law and if the selection process has already completed.
In view of the above, the instant petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 25.1.2021 nishant/-