# Gajendra Singh and another v. State of U.P. and others

- **Citation:** (2004) 1 ILRA 42
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2003-09-24
- **Bench:** Sunil Ambwani
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/gajendra-singh-and-another-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-40272
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

S.C.

U.P. (Outside the Purview of U.P. Public
Service
Commission)
Procedure
for
Direct Recruitment to Group C Posts,
Rules
2001,
Rr.
6A,
6
(6)
(c)-
Appointment on post of Junior clerk in
Govt. Press-knowledge of typing not
required- petitioner an similarly situated
candidates
qualified
written
examination- candidature not considered
for
making
false
disclosures
about
knowledge of typing-held, not amount to
disqualification.

Held: Para 19

In the facts and circumstances of the
case, all the writ petitions are allowed.
It is held that the respondents have
illegally
and
arbitrarily
refused
to
consider petitioners for the post of
Assistant Clerk in Government Press
advertised
vide
advertisement
dated
30.8.2001 published in Dainik Jagran,
Allahabad.
All
the
petitioners
and
similarly situate candidates, are entitled
to be considered for the post of junior
clerks irrespective of the fact whether
they disclosed that they had knowledge
of typing. All appointments made out of
select list are quashed. Respondents are
directed to rearrange the select list in
accordance with Rules 2001, as well as
directions issued in this judgement, and
to prepare a fresh select list and to offer
appointment strictly in accordance with
law.
Case law discussed:

## Text

http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2004
42
the view that following procedure should
be adopted for giving effect to the
intention of the parties for settling their
disputes;

i) On filing compromise before this
Court, a direction is to be given to the
parties to file fresh compromise in terms
of the compromise filed before this Court,
before the concerned authority and writ
petition may be directed to be listed after
a reasonable time.

ii) Concerned authority is to be directed
to entertain the Compromise if it is filed
along with certified copy of order of this
Court.

iii) Upon filing the compromise before
the concerned authority pursuant to the
directions of this Court, appropriate steps
for getting it verified in accordance with
law is to be taken by the authority,
preferably within a period of two months
from the date of receipt of copy of
compromise along with application.

iv) On getting the compromise verified,
the authority concerned will be required
to pass a formal order in writing that the
compromise has been verified and that the
parties have agreed to settle their dispute
in terms of compromise.

v) After the order is passed by the
concerned authority, it will be for either
of the parties to move an application
before this Court along with certified
copy of the order of the said authority
with the request for passing a formal
order, disposing of the writ petition,
giving liberty to the parties to move
application before the concerned authority
to give effect to the compromise which
has been arrived at before him, which had
been duly verified and accepted.

7. In the light of the aforesaid
process, this Court feels that chances of
any malpractice in getting any party
defrauded will be saved and the intention
of the parties to get their rights settled
byway of compromise will also be
achieved. On examination of the decision
as has been referred by learned counsel, it
is clear that these various aspects could
not be noticed which may not necessarily
arise in each case, but even if it arises in
some of the case, It may be harassment
rather harsh for the party who is to come
before this Court with the charge of fraud
on him and therefore, to rule out the
chance of fraud and the chances of this
Court being party in the suffering of any
party, disposal of the matter in the light of
the aforesaid process will be in the ends
of justice

8. For the reasons recorded above by
giving liberty to the parties to do the
needful in terms of the orders of this
Court, this writ petition is directed to be
listed immediately after two months.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.9.2003

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUNIL AMBWANI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 19367 0f 2003

Gajendra Singh and another ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Ashok Khare
Sri A.K. Singh
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
1 All] Gajendra Singh and another V. State of U.P. and others
43
Sri Ghanshyam Dwivedi
Sri Ramendra Ashthana

Counsel for the Respondents:
S.C.

U.P. (Outside the Purview of U.P. Public
Service
Commission)
Procedure
for
Direct Recruitment to Group C Posts,
Rules
2001,
Rr.
6A,
6
(6)
(c)-
Appointment on post of Junior clerk in
Govt. Press-knowledge of typing not
required- petitioner an similarly situated
candidates
qualified
written
examination- candidature not considered
for
making
false
disclosures
about
knowledge of typing-held, not amount to
disqualification.

Held: Para 19

In the facts and circumstances of the
case, all the writ petitions are allowed.
It is held that the respondents have
illegally
and
arbitrarily
refused
to
consider petitioners for the post of
Assistant Clerk in Government Press
advertised
vide
advertisement
dated
30.8.2001 published in Dainik Jagran,
Allahabad.
All
the
petitioners
and
similarly situate candidates, are entitled
to be considered for the post of junior
clerks irrespective of the fact whether
they disclosed that they had knowledge
of typing. All appointments made out of
select list are quashed. Respondents are
directed to rearrange the select list in
accordance with Rules 2001, as well as
directions issued in this judgement, and
to prepare a fresh select list and to offer
appointment strictly in accordance with
law.
Case law discussed:

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sunil Ambwani, J.)

1. Heard Sri Ashok Khare, Senior
Advocate, assisted by Sri A.K. Singh in
writ petition nos. 19367 of 2003, 19045 of
2003 and 18791 of 2003, Sri Ghanshyam
Dwivedi in writ petition No. 20213 of
2003 and Sri Ramendra Ashthana in writ
petition No. 20150 of 2003, and learned
Standing Counsel for respondents in the
above writ petition.

2. The facts giving rise to these writ
petitions are stated as below:

In writ petition nos. 19367 of 2003,
19045 of 2003 and 18791 of 2003,
petitioners applied in pursuance of
advertisement
in
newspaper
'Dainik
Jagran' dated 30.8.2001 for appointment
to Group-C posts under U.P. (Outside the
Purview of Public Service Commission)
Procedure for Direct Recruitment to
Group 'C' Posts Rules, 2001. All the
petitioners applied for 54 advertised
vacancies of Junior Clerks; 14 for typists
and 8 of Apprentice Clerks in the
Government Press, Allahabad for which
appointing authority is the Joint Director,
Government Press, Allahabad. Whereas
the minimum qualification for the posts of
Junior Clerks was provided to be
Intermediate, and for the posts of Typists,
the minimum qualification prescribed was
Intermediate with proficiency in typing 25
words per minute in Hindi. The
advertisement was published under the
authority
of
Chief
Development
Officer/Chairman
District
Selection
Committee (Group-C), Allahabad. In writ
petition No. 18791 of 2003, petitioners
1,2,5 and 6 belong to general category,
petitioner nos. 3 and 4 belongs to other
backward class, and petitioner no. 5
claims reservation as dependent of
Freedom Fighter. In writ petition No.
19045 of 2003 also both petitioners
belong to general category and in writ
petition No. 19367 of 2003, both
petitioners belong to general category. All
the petitioners applied for all the three
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2004
44
posts and in column 7 (b) of the
application form they disclosed that they
are proficient in typing.

3. A written examination was held
on 7.10.2001. The result was published on
25.11.2001. All the petitioners qualified
in the written examination. A writ petition
No,. 32799 of 2001 between Ashok
Kumar Vs. State of U.P. was filed
challenging the constitution of selection
committee for filling up the posts in
Government Press in which interim order
was passed on 9.10.2001, restraining the
respondents to proceed with selections.
Subsequently by order dated 3.1.2002 it
was clarified that the stay order dated
9.10.2001 was limited for the posts of
typist in Government Press and did not
operate with regard to other posts. All the
petitioners were called for appearing in
type test which was scheduled to be held
on 5/6.12.2001. In the communication
calling petitioners for type test, it was
clarified that the candidates who will
appear in typing/Stenography test, will
nevertheless be included for consideration
for the post in which the knowledge of
typist was not necessary and will be
considered
on
their
merit
position.
Petitioner No. 3 and 4 in writ petition No.
19045 of 2003 appeared in type test. The
remaining petitioners in this writ petition
did not appear. The petitioners in both
the writ petitions No. 19045 of 2003 and
No. 19367 of 2003 did not participate in
type test.

4. The entire selection process was
stopped on account of a Radiogram of
21.2.2001, issued by the Government
Order dated 29.4.2002, in pursuance of
the undertaking given on behalf of State
Government and thereafter under the
order of the Apex Court in Writ Petition
No. 488 of 2001, between Akhil Bharat
Varshiya Chhatra Yuva Berojgar Front
Vs. State of U.P. and others. Thereafter
by U.P. Act No. 1 of 2002, the
amendments providing for reservations to
most backward classes were deleted. A
number of writ petitions were filed before
this Court for concluding the selection
process. In writ petition No. 31852 of
2002 between Ajit Kumar Singh Vs. State
of U.P. while allowing writ petitions on
4.10.2002 a direction was issued to
complete the selection process. A Special
Appeal against the said judgment was
filed before the Supreme Court on
7.2.2003 which was withdrawn for
availing remedy of Special Appeal. A
Special Appeal No. 120 of 2003 filed
thereafter is still pending. In pursuance of
the statement given in contempt petition
No. 502 of 2003 the State Government
issued a Radiogram dated 5.4..2003 for
completing the selection process. Even
though the selections for 54 posts of
Junior Clerks in Government Press was
stopped, the result was declared for 52
posts. When these writ petitions were
filed, the Court noticed that there are 8
petitioners in writ petition No. 18791 of
2003, and 19045 of 2003, and a direction
was issued that the eight candidates who
stand at bottom, of the select list shall not
be offered appointment. It was made clear
that the Court is not interfering in the
selection process. Learned Standing
Counsel requested for time to file counter
affidavit,
which
was
extended
on
7.5.2003, 22.5.2003 and thereafter on
7.8.2003. Since it is a matter arising out
of Allahabad, this Court took strong
exception for further extension of time
and imposed cost of Rs.5,000/- to adjourn
the case
which was deposited on
13.8.2003. At this stage it is pertinent to
state that on 22.5.2003 when all these
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
1 All] Gajendra Singh and another V. State of U.P. and others
45
matters were taken up Sri H.P. Upadhyay,
Additional Standing Counsel prayed for
further time for filing counter affidavit.
On a request made by counsel for
petitioner
to
stay
the
appointment,
following order was passed by this Court
on 22.5.2003:

"Inspite of time granted no counter
affidavit
has
been
filed.
Sri
H.P.
Upadhyay, Additional Standing Counsel
prays for and is granted three weeks
further time to file counter affidavit. List
all these connected cases on 15.7.2003.

Sri Upadhyay states that on account
of modernization of the Government Press
and in order to accommodate retrenched
employees the department is considering
the number of appointments to be made
and that no appointment shall be made
until the next date of hearing. In view of
the aforesaid statement, no interim order
is required to be passed in these matters.
List on 15.7.2003."

5. It appears that inspite of the
aforesaid assurance given to this Court,
respondents offered appointment to the
candidates out of the select list, leaving
only 8 posts. Since these appointment
letters were issued against an assurance
given by the respondents to this Court,
and were made during the pendency of
the writ petition, the Court did not
consider it proper to implead all the
appointees to decide the rights of
petitioners, and has proceeded to decide
the case in absence of these appointees.

6. Counter affidavits have been
filed. All the counsels agreed that no
rejoinder affidavits are required to be
submitted, and have addressed the court
on merits. With the consent of all the
parties under the Rules of the Court these
writ petitions are being decided at this
stage.

7. These selections are regulated by
the U.P. (Outside the Purview of U.P.
Public Service Commission) Procedure
for Direct Recruitment to Group-C Posts,
Rules, 2001 (in short Rules, 2001). Rule
6-A provides that a examination will be
held for selection for 150 marks and the
select list of the candidates shall be
prepared
in
accordance
with
the
procedure provided under sub rule (9)(b)
& (c). Sub Rule (a) provides that an
objective, written test of one paper
consisting of general Hindi, general
knowledge and general studies will be
taken. 90% marks of the total number of
marks will be given to the candidates
except for those posts in which typing or
stenography and typing is the essential
condition for appointments and in other
case candidates will be given 70% of the
marks in the written examination. Where
any
physical
standards
have
been
provided for the posts, the candidates
shall be subject to the physical test after
the written examination, from amongst
the candidates who fulfilled minimum
physical standards. Sub Rule (c) provides
that those posts for which typing,
stenography and typing is essential
condition, the selected candidates shall be
required to appear in type test, or
stenography and type test as the case may
be and 20% of the marks obtained in such
type test shall be given to the candidates
who have achieved minimum speed. The
ratio of candidates to be called for type
test or stenography and type test shall be
4/1, provide in these selection every
candidate applied for all the vacancies.
At the time of application the candidate
will be required to give only first
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2004
46
preference to the vacancies, to be
addressed to the Chairman of the
Selection
Committee.
After
the
declaration of result the candidates can
give their preferences to the Chairman of
the Selection Committee.

8. In the counter affidavit of Sri
Bhav Nath, Chairman District Selection
Committee/Chief Development Officer,
Allahabad, it is stated that the selections
were held under the aforesaid rules. The
categories of posts available in group-C in
which typist, stenographers and the posts
for which knowledge of typing is not
required were clubbed together. Apart
from the Application form, a column was
also provided in the answer books
requiring the candidates to state whether
they know typing/ shorthand. Those
candidates
who
gave
the
aforesaid
information,
were,
according
to
preference
given
by
them
in
the
application, were classified and were
required
to
appear
in
the
typing/stenography
test.
All
the
petitioners disclosed in their application
forms as well as in answer books that they
knew typing. The requisite number of
candidates were called for typing test.
The petitioners appeared in type test and
did not succeed. The rest of them did not
appear. As against 42 posts of Junior
Clerks, out of the select list, 19 candidates
have been given appointments. Since the
petitioners had disclosed that they were
proficient in typing and they either did not
appear and failed in type test, were not
included in the select list.

9. Sri Ashok Khare appearing for all
the petitioners submit that there were two
categories of posts. Whereas the post of
Junior Clerks did not require proficiency
in typing, the post of stenographer
required
knowledge
of
typing
and
stenography. The petitioners were given
option to apply for all the posts. They also
gave information in both the application
and the answer book that they were
proficient in typing, but some of the
petitioners did not chose to appear in type
test. Petitioners 3 and 4 in writ petition
No. 18791 of 2003 appeared, but did not
qualify.
They,
however,
were
not
disentitled to be considered for the post of
Junior Clerk for which typing was not the
essential qualification. He submits that
both under the rules, namely, rules 6 (c)
and 8, as well as in the call letter for type
test, it was clearly mentioned that those
who did not appear in type test ,or did not
qualify will not be made illegible to be
considered for the post of Junior Clerk,
and that the selection for Junior Clerk
shall be made according to merit position
in the examination. The respondents,
therefore, acted arbitrarily in excluding
the petitioners for consideration only for
the post of Junior Clerk, on the ground
that they either failed or did not appear in
type test. He further submits that
respondents have committed contempt of
the orders of this Court and assurances
given to this Court in giving 19
appointments.

They
have
shown
disrespect to the Court and that the
Chairman of Selection Committee and the
Joint Director of the Government are
guilty of contempt. He also submits that
action should be taken against Chairman
of
Selection
Committee
who
has
deliberately and purposely acted against
the rules.

10. In writ petition No. 18791 of
2003, Petitioner No.5 belongs to category
of dependent of freedom fighter and in
No. 20213 of 2003, petitioner claims to be
candidate
seeking
reservation
for
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
1 All] Gajendra Singh and another V. State of U.P. and others
47
physically
handicapped
candidates.
Petitioner, it is alleged, is physically
disabled in the right leg, limb by 50% and
is entitled to be considered for a quota of
physically
handicapped
candidate
suffering from disability provided under
U.P. Public Service (Reservation for
Physically Handicapped, Dependents of
Freedom Fighters and Ex-Serviceman)
Act, 1993 as amended in 1997. They
submits that the reservation has been
provided under the aforesaid Act in all
government service and that the State
Government has also notified the posts of
clerks for reservation for physically
handicapped. The petitioner should have
been considered under the said quota.

11. In the counter affidavit of Sri
Bhav Nath, Chairman, District Selection
Committee/Chief Development Officer,
Allahabad, it is stated in paragraph 3 that
after the amendment on the reservation
Act the reservation for certain categories
including
dependents
of
Freedom
Fighters/Physically Handicapped/Women
has been given up and in paragraph 5 it
has
been
stated
that
under
the
Government
Order
dated
12.4.2003
physically handicapped have not been
given quota in the select list.

12. In writ petition No. 20150 of
2003, the writ petition as for petitioner no.
2 has been dismissed with liberty to file
fresh writ petition. It is, therefore,
confined only to Anil Kumar Roy,
petitioner no. 1 who is in the same
category as petitioners in the first three
writ petitions and had applied for all the
posts. He did appear for type test and had
been deprived for being considered from
the post of Junior Clerk only on the
ground that he had mentioned in the
application and answer book that he was
proficient
in
typing.
Sri
Ramendra
Asthana appearing for petitioner submits
that the eligibility condition cannot be
changed during recruitment process. He
has relied upon the Judgment of Supreme
Court in Gopal Krishna Rathi Vs.
M.A.A. Beg and others (1999(1) SCC
544 and State of Madhya Pradesh Vs.
Raghubir
Singh
Yadav
(1994(3),UPLBEC 1849). In this case
also a counter affidavit of Sri Bhav Nath,
it has been disclosed that petitioner did
not have knowledge of typing and since
he did not qualify in type test he was
taken out of the selection process. In
paragraph 19, it has been stated that in
Government
Press,
the
number
of
vacancies were reduced from 54 to 42,
and thus select list of only 42 candidates
was declared.

13. The selections in the present
case were held under Rules of 2001,
notified on 20.8.2001. The advertisement
dated 29.8.2001 published by Chief
Development Officer/Chairman, District
Selection Committee (Group-C), at Sl.
No. 19, for Allahabad invited applications
for 54 posts of Junior Clerks, 14 posts of
Typist and 8 posts of Apprentice Clerk for
Printing and Stationary, Allahabad. The
Appointing Authority for these posts is
Joint
Director,
Government
Press,
Allahabad. The eligibility for the post of
Junior Clerk is Intermediate. The column
of special eligibility/other condition in
front of Junior Clerk was left blank. The
post
of
Clerks,
however,
required
minimum qualification as intermediate,
and knowledge of typing with a speed of
25
words
per
minute
as
special
eligibility/condition. For Apprentice Clerk
same qualification was required as in the
case of typist. All the petitioners applied
for all the three categories of posts, and
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2004
48
disclosed in their application form that
they were proficient in Hindi typing. The
Rules, 2001 provided in rule 6 (6) that the
examination of selection shall constitute
150 marks and the select list shall be
prepared in a manner that 90% of the
marks shall be determined on the basis of
objective type written examination in
General Hindi, General knowledge and
General Studies. Except those applicants
who are required to be selected on a post
for which the typing or stenography and
typing is essential condition of eligibility,
and in such cases 75% marks shall be
provided for written examination. A
proviso to Rule 6 provides that where any
standard of physical ability are provided
as essential condition of recruitment, the
written examination shall be held only
after such candidates are subjected to all
the prescribed minimum standard of
physical ability. Rule 6 (6)(c) provided
that those posts for which typing and
stenography and knowledge in typing is
essential condition, the candidates shall be
subjected to type or stenography and type
as the case may be, test for typing. 20% of
the marks shall be given to those
candidates who are efficient in typing
with minimum speed. The number of
candidates to be called for type or
stenography test shall be 4/1 and for this
purpose a select list shall be prepared
separately taking into account the rules
for reservation. Sub rule 8 provides that in
these selections every candidates should
be at liberty to apply for all the vacancies
for which the selection is being made by
the selection committee. At the time of
application,
the
applicants
will
be
required to give their first preference in
the application form which shall be
addressed to selection committee. After
the declaration of result the successful
candidates shall give their preference to
other posts as well. The application form
required
the
applicants
to
disclose
whether they have knowledge of typing,
in column 7 (ka), and whether they have
knowledge of stenography and typing in
column 7 (kha). In the answer sheet of
objective test also, a special column was
provided to give information by marking
in affirmative whether the candidate
knows typing or shorthand and typing as
the case may be. Petitioners were declared
successful in the written test. Some of the
petitioners, as detailed above, appeared in
the type test. All of them have not been
selected on the ground that they had
disclosed in their application form as well
as examination test paper form that they
are proficient in typing, but they either
failed or did not appear in the type test.
All the petitioners were, therefore, not
considered for the post of Junior Clerks
for which a knowledge of typing was not
required. In the counter affidavit of Sri
Bhav Nath, Chairman, District Selection
Committee/Chief Development Officer,
Allahabad, it is stated that petitioners
gave false information in their form, and
in the answer book that they had
knowledge
of
typing.
Only
those
candidates
who
had
given
this
information were allowed to appear in the
type test. Those who have not filled up
these columns were considered for the
post of Junior Clerks.

14. The question to be considered in
these
writ
petitions
is
whether
a
candidates who applied for all the three
categories of posts and disclosed in his
application
form
as
well
as
examination/test paper form that he had
knowledge
of
typing
as
essential
qualification for being considered for the
post of Junior Clerk for which the
knowledge of typing was not required. A
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
1 All] Gajendra Singh and another V. State of U.P. and others
49
answer to this question can be easily
found in Rule 6 (6) and (8) of the Rules of
2001. Rule 6 (8) clearly gives an option to
the candidates to apply for all categories
of posts by giving their first preference in
his application form. His other preference
is required to be given only after the
examination was declared. Sub Rule 6
provided for break up of percentage of
marks out of 150 marks and those who
appeared for the post in which the
knowledge of typing or stenography and
typing was required. The fact that the
petitioners filled up column 7 (ka) and the
examination/test
paper
by
giving
information that they had knowledge of
typing,
were
not
disqualify
from
consideration for the post of Assistant
Clerk on the basis of the marks secured by
them
in
the
written
examination.
Interviews are not provided under the
rules. The selection is based only upon
the result of the written examination and
type test or stenography and type test as
the case may be, for particular post. 10%
marks
is
provided
for
retrenched
employees in accordance with Rule 6(6)
(kha). A plain reading of rule 6 of the
Rules, 2001 shows that those candidates
who disclosed that they had knowledge of
typing and thereafter either failed or did
not appear in the type test could not be
disqualified for the post of Assistant
Clerk. There was no difficulty in
preparing the list for the post of Assistant
Clerk and typist on the basis of marks
obtained
by
them
in
the
written
examination. The respondents, therefore,
committed gross error in refusing to
consider petitioners for the post of
Assistant Clerks on the basis of their
merit
in
the
written
objective
examination. In the counter affidavit it
has already been submitted that some of
the candidates did not give preference for
the post/department/office and that thus
all of them were allowed to appear in the
examination.

15. The objection taken in the
counter affidavit cannot be sustained. The
District
Selection
Committee
acted
arbitrary and in violation of the rules, in
preparing the list. The Court does not find
that the task of preparing list was so
difficult, which disqualified petitioners to
be considered for the post of Assistant
Clerks. A matter of convenience in
preparing select list can not be a ground
for considering petitioners for junior
clerks in which typing was not a special
condition. In the written test taken under
statutory rules, the respondents could not
ignore the candidature or disqualify those
who were eligible for the post to which
they had applied.

16. The stand taken by the
Chairman, District Selection Committee
with regard to reservation of physically
handicapped, dependents of freedom
fighters and women is in ignorance of
law. Reservation of freedom fighters,
physically
handicapped,
and
exserviceman as horizontal reservation
(inter-locking reservation) is provided in
each category of vertical reservation,
provided under U.P. Public (Reservation
for Physically Handicapped) Dependents
of Freedom Fighters and Ex-Servicemen)
Act, 1993, as amended in 1997 which is
still in force.

17. By a Government Order dated
7th May, 1999, the State Government has
identified
those
posts
for
which
reservation
is
to
be
provided
for
physically handicapped persons under
section 32 of the Act. In Group-C posts
item no. 46 relates to Junior Clerks for
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2004
50
which in case the physical requirements,
and categories of disabilities are provided,
in which O.L., i.e. one leg affected, is
included. With this reservation applicable
to the post of Assistant Clerk, the
petitioner Sri Neeraj Kumar Pandey who
claims to be physically handicapped could
not have been denied consideration for
horizontal
reservation
in
his
own
category. Annexure-4 is certificate issued
to him by Orthopedic Surgeon and
counter-signed by the Chief Medical
Officer which shows that he has disability
on right lower limb by fifty percent
(PPRP).

18. Interim orders were passed by
this Court not to give appointment to the
last
eight
selected
candidates.
The
vacancies were reduced from 54 to 42 for
the junior clerks and it is stated that last
eight candidates have not been given
appointment. The Court is thus left to
decide the validity of appointment of 36
junior clerks out of the select list prepared
by the District Selection Committee. This
Court did not grant interim order as the
matter related to Allahabad itself and it
was expected that the counter affidavit
may be filed on 7.8.2003. Inspite of a
statement given by Sri H.P. Upadhyay,
learned
Additional
Chief
Standing
Counsel, on 22.5.2002 no appointment
were to be made until next date of
hearing, but still the appointment letters
were issued. The respondents have,
therefore, breached the assurance given
by learned Additional Chief Standing
Counsel to this Court. The matter was
subjudice, and almost all the affected
persons
had
knowledge
of
the
proceedings. The appointment letters
were, therefore, illegally issued and
cannot defeat petitioners right on the
ground that the selected persons have not
been impleaded.

19. In the facts and circumstances of
the case, all the writ petitions are allowed.
It is held that the respondents have
illegally
and
arbitrarily
refused
to
consider petitioners for the post of
Assistant Clerk in Government Press
advertised
vide
advertisement
dated
30.8.2001 published in Dainik Jagran,
Allahabad.
All
the
petitioners
and
similarly situate candidates, are entitled to
be considered for the post of junior clerks
irrespective of the fact whether they
disclosed that they had knowledge of
typing. All appointments made out of
select list are quashed. Respondents are
directed to rearrange the select list in
accordance with Rules 2001, as well as
directions issued in this judgement, and to
prepare a fresh select list and to offer
appointment strictly in accordance with
law. In writ petition Nos. 18791 of 2003
and No. 20213 of 2002, petitioners is held
entitled to be considered for reservation as
dependent
of
freedom
fighter
and
physically handicapped post for the post
of Assistant clerk and shall be considered
accordingly. The costs are quantified at
Rs. 5,000/- to be paid by the respondents.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.08.2003

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAKESH TIWARI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1900 of 1994

Amar Nath

...Petitioner
Versus
District Inspector of Schools, Deoria and
another

 ...Respondents