Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
Heard Dr.L.P. Misra, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, learned Standing Counsel and Mr. R.K. Upadhyaya, learned counsel for the respondent no.1.
This intra court appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated 19.12.2019 passed in Writ Petition No.6697 (S/S) of 2016; Pankaj Jaiswal Vs. State of U.P. & others. The present appellant was respondent in the writ petition.
Under challenge in the writ petition was the appointment of the appellant on the post of Ship Modelling Instructor in the office of opposite party no.4. The writ court has allowed the writ petition filed by the private respondent and accordingly quashed the order dated 22.5.2014 whereby the appellant was appointed on the post in question. A direction was issued by this Court to the respondents to consider the appointment of the writ petitioner on the post of Ship Modelling Instructor within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of the order.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that in the selection held on the post in question, the appellant was placed at Sl.No.1 whereas the writ petitioner was placed at Sl.No.2 in the merit list. The petitioner was not given 15 marks for the Intermediate examination as he had not passed the Intermediate examination with the subject as mentioned in the advertisement. It is submitted that in the writ petition the writ petitioner had claimed that he has acquired the ITI certificate for which 15 marks were allotted, however the same were not given and in case the said marks were given he would have been placed at the top in the merit list and would have been given appointment on the post in question. The writ court accepted the contention of writ petitioner and as such allowed the writ petition and quashed the appointment of the appellant.
Mr. R.K. Upadhyaya, learned counsel has appeared on behalf of respondent no.1/writ petitioner and informed that during pendency of this appeal the respondent no.1/writ petitioner has died.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that pursuant to the impugned judgment the appellant was stopped from working and his appointment has been quashed. It is submitted that the writ petitioner had not been given appointment as it was found that the ITI certificate produced by him was forged. It is also submitted that before any appointment could be given to the writ petitioner he has died.
The contention is that on the post the appellant was appointed is very much available and lying vacant. The appellant has worked with full satisfaction of the opposite parties and there was no other reason for cancellation of appointment of the appellant. The writ petitioner could not be given the benefit of the impugned judgment as he has died, as such the appellant may be allowed to continue on the post in question.
We have considered the submissions and gone through the records.
Considering the fact that the writ petitioner has died and the benefit of the impugned judgment could not be granted to him and the appellant has been restrained from working and his appointment order has been interfered with pursuant to the impugned judgment, it would be for the authorities to consider as to whether in the present circumstances the appellant can be permitted to continue to work on the post on which he was appointed and confirmed i.e. Ship Modelling Instructor. It is admitted between the parties that the appellant was placed at Sl. No.1 in the merit list of the selection on the post in question and he has worked satisfactorily continuously for more than five years and there is no other reason for the opposite parties to dispense with the services of the appellant.
With these observations, the special appeal is disposed of.
Order Date :- 19.1.2021 Arjun/-