Heard Sri Pawan Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Sharad Dwivedi, learned Standing Counsel for the State and Sri Jogendra Nath Verma, learned counsel for the U.P. Subordinate Service Selection Commission, Lucknow.
This Court has passed a detailed order on 8.7.2021, which reads as under:
"Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Parul Bajpai, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Sri Jogendra Nath Verma, learned counsel for the opposite party No.3 through video conferencing.
By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following relief:-
"(i) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the opposite parties, particularly opposite party No.3, to include name of the petitioner in list of selected candidates and send the same to opposite party No.2 for issuance of appointment letter in favour of the petitioner for the post of Tubewell Operator under Freedom Fighter quota of general category as the petitioner has appeared and qualified 'Tubewell Operator Examination-2016.' Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court towards Annexure No.1 to the writ petition, which is an order dated 03.12.2020 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.21943 (S/S) of 2020, whereby the writ petition of the petitioner was disposed of finally permitting him to prefer a representation before the authority competent and further direction was issued to the concerning opposite party to take appropriate decision. Thereafter, the order dated 17.02.2021 (Annexure No.2) has been passed by the Chief Engineer (Mechanical), Irrigation and Water Resource Department, U.P., Lucknow disposing of the representation of the petitioner.
On being asked from the petitioner as to why he has not assailed the order dated 17.02.2021 i.e. Annexure No.2 to the writ petition, the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court towards para-18 of the writ petition whereby he has submitted that merit may not be raised for the candidates relating to the category of Freedom Fighter. For convenience, para-18 of the writ petition is being reproduced here-in-below:-
"18. That it is relevant to mention here that the opposite party No.3 has issued a letter dated 27.11.2019 (Annexre No.13) whereby cut off merit of the dependent of Freedom Fighters has been shown as 32.5 marks whereas in the first result it was mentioned as 27.0 marks and in the second result it was mentioned as 25.0 marks and suddenly instead of decreasing the cut off, it has been increased in illegal and arbitrary manner without any basis and calculation."
Learned counsel for the petitioner has therefore submitted that now the grievance of the petitioner is limited to the effect that the opposite party No.3 i.e. the U.P. Subordinate Service Selection Commission, Lucknow should apprise as to why the name of the petitioner has not been sent despite he is a eligible candidate, as per law.
List this case on 16.07.2021 as fresh to enable Sri Jogendra Nath Verma, learned counsel for the opposite party No.3 to seek complete instructions in the matter, failing which, the interim relief application of the petitioner may be considered on the next date."
In compliance of the order dated 8.7.2021 Sri Verma was to seek complete instruction in the matter but on 16.7.2021 the case was adjourned on the request of Sri Verma to seek instructions.
The case was again adjourned on 23.7.2021 to enable Sri Verma to seek instructions in terms of order of this Court.
Today Sri Verma has informed the Court that he has received complete instructions in the matter and on the basis of instructions he informed the Court that the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is correct to the effect that under the quota of dependents of freedom fighters the candidates who obtained less marks to the petitioner for Tube-well Operator Examination, 2016 have been selected. He has also informed the Court that not only the petitioner but some other candidates of similar category despite having obtained more marks in comparison to the selected candidates, could not be selected finally due to bona-fide and inadvertent mistake. He has further submitted that the U.P. Subordinate Services Selection Commission, Lucknow, the opposite party no. 3 is carrying out the required exercise so as to overcome the aforesaid unwarranted situation whereby the candidates who obtained more marks have not been selected and those who obtained less marks have been selected but so as to come on a definite conclusion some time would be required. He has assured the Court on behalf of Commission that after the aforesaid exercise being carried out no anomaly of any kind whatsoever would be left over and the candidates who obtained appropriate marks would be declared successful and the benefit thereof may be provided to the present petitioner if his candidature comes within the purview of selected candidates. He has further submitted that persons who have been already selected, however, erroneously may be afforded an opportunity of hearing providing them a notice, therefore, the matter may be adjourned for today and it may be listed after one month.
Be that as it may, when this is admission on the part of the Commission that due to inadvertent and bona-fide mistake some candidates have been selected who obtained less marks in comparison to some candidates who obtained more marks and for removing such anomaly the required exercise is going on in the Commission and it is likely to be concluded within 4-6 weeks, therefore, there would be no fruitful purpose in keeping this petition pending inasmuch as it is not the Court but the Commission who shall take appropriate steps selecting such candidates who have obtained qualifying marks as per their own criteria. However, liberty is given to the petitioner to approach the Commission through fresh representation taking all pleas and grounds which are available to him enclosing therewith the copies of documents and certified / computer generated copy of the order of this Court with promptness and it is expected that the Commission shall do the needful in accordance with law and the petitioner shall not be discriminated if his candidature comes within the purview of selected candidates after carrying out the exercise being undertaken by the Commission.
It is needless to say that the petitioner may again approach the appropriate forum or the appropriate Court of law, if his grievance is not redressed strictly in accordance with law.
Writ petition is disposed of in view of above.
Order Date :- 28.7.2021 Om