# Manju Verma & Ors v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 4 ILRA 373
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-03-31
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 12236 of 2021
- **Bench:** Vivek Chaudhary
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/manju-verma-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-48334
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

A. Service Law -Paramedical and nonparamedical
staff
-
Appointment
on
contractual basis - Discharge - Refusal to
renew the service - Validity challenged -
No statutory service rules framed - Effect
- Duty of the St. explained - Held, nonexistence of statutory service rules does
not make any difference as the St. has coextensive executive power for the same.
It is duty of the St. Government to
forthwith frame the rules and make
regular selection as per law. In the garb of
not framing the rules St. Government
cannot claim right to become arbitrary
and hire and fire at its own sweet will in
the garb of contractual appointment. The
conduct of the St. has to be non-arbitrary
-
Held
further,
the
petitioners
are
discharged in arbitrary manner. (Para 12
and 14)
B.
Service
jurisprudence
-
Adhoc
employees - Discharge - Nature of work -
It's being permanent in nature - Effect -
Replacement
of
adhoc
employee
by
another adhoc employee - Permissibility -
Requirement of work is permanent in
374 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
nature as there is no decision taken by the
St. Government till date for closure of the
aforesaid homeopathic medical colleges
and hospitals - Held, there is settled
principal of service law that an adhoc
employee cannot be replaced by another
adhoc employee - Piara Singh' case relied
upon. (Para 11 and 12)
C. Judicial review - Rule of law - Policy
matter - Interference by the court, when
warranted - Held, the Court can definitely
look into a policy decision basis of which
violates the rule of law. Where a policy
decision is on the face of it arbitrary and
violates settled principal of law, this Court
has power to look into the same also - Brij
Mohan Lal's case relied upon. (Para 13)
Writ petition allowed. (E-1)
List of Cases cited :-

## Text

4 All. Manju Verma & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
373

21. The issue regarding the fact that
post graduate degree in Geology and
graduate degree in Geology may be
considered as essential qualification for
appointment on the post of Mining Officer
and Mining Inspector respectively, can be
looked into by the State Government as the
same is a policy matter and the policy
decisions of the State are not to be
disturbed/interfered with unless they are
found to be grossly arbitrary or irrational.

22. Counsel for the parties agree that
the writ petition may be disposed of finally
at this stage without calling for further
affidavits specifically in view of the order
proposed to be passed today as well as to
the relief pressed by learned counsel for the
petitioners before this Court today.

23. Considering the facts and
circumstances of the case and submissions
made by the parties, this writ petition is
disposed of with a direction to the
petitioners
to
make
a
detailed
representation along with the copy of writ
petition, all the documents so advised as
well as certified copy of this order before
the respondent no.2, i.e. Director, Geology
& Mining, U.P., Lucknow, who shall
forward the same to the respondent no.1,
i.e. Principal Secretary, Geology & Mining
Department,
Government
of
U.P.,
Lucknow. If any such representation is
made, the respondent no.1 after obtaining
expert opinion from Uttar Pradesh Public
Service Commission, Prayagraj, U.P. shall
make all endeavours to consider and decide
the
same,
in
accordance
with
law,
preferably within a period of two months
from the date of receipt of the said
representation.

24. Accordingly, this writ petition is
disposed of. No order as to costs.
----------
(2022)04ILR A373
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 31.03.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIVEK CHAUDHARY, J.

Writ A No. 12236 of 2021
with
other connected cases

Manju Verma & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Lalta Prasad Misra, Prafulla Tiwari

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Service Law -Paramedical and nonparamedical
staff
-
Appointment
on
contractual basis - Discharge - Refusal to
renew the service - Validity challenged -
No statutory service rules framed - Effect
- Duty of the St. explained - Held, nonexistence of statutory service rules does
not make any difference as the St. has coextensive executive power for the same.
It is duty of the St. Government to
forthwith frame the rules and make
regular selection as per law. In the garb of
not framing the rules St. Government
cannot claim right to become arbitrary
and hire and fire at its own sweet will in
the garb of contractual appointment. The
conduct of the St. has to be non-arbitrary
-
Held
further,
the
petitioners
are
discharged in arbitrary manner. (Para 12
and 14)
B.
Service
jurisprudence
-
Adhoc
employees - Discharge - Nature of work -
It's being permanent in nature - Effect -
Replacement
of
adhoc
employee
by
another adhoc employee - Permissibility -
Requirement of work is permanent in
374 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
nature as there is no decision taken by the
St. Government till date for closure of the
aforesaid homeopathic medical colleges
and hospitals - Held, there is settled
principal of service law that an adhoc
employee cannot be replaced by another
adhoc employee - Piara Singh' case relied
upon. (Para 11 and 12)
C. Judicial review - Rule of law - Policy
matter - Interference by the court, when
warranted - Held, the Court can definitely
look into a policy decision basis of which
violates the rule of law. Where a policy
decision is on the face of it arbitrary and
violates settled principal of law, this Court
has power to look into the same also - Brij
Mohan Lal's case relied upon. (Para 13)
Writ petition allowed. (E-1)
List of Cases cited :-
1. St. of Haryana & ors.Vs Piara Singh & ors.;
(1992) 4 SCC
118
2. Brij Mohan Lal Vs U.O.I.; (2012) 6 SCC 502

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vivek Chaudhary, J.)

1. This is a bunch of writ petitions
whereby petitioners, who are paramedical
and non paramedical staffs appointed on
contractual
basis
in
the
government
medical colleges and hospitals, have
challenged their discharge orders issued on
different dates from October, 2020 onwards
and for a mandamus commanding the
opposite parties to reinstate the petitioners
on the posts on which they were working.

2. The facts of the case are that by
government order dated 27.10.2017, the
State Government took a decision for
making selection and appointments on the
posts of paramedical and non paramedical
staff on contractual basis for government
homeopathic
medical
colleges
and
hospitals. In furtherance of the aforesaid
government order, an advertisement was
issued
on
15.12.2017 providing
that
contractual appointment as paramedical
and non paramedical staff is to be made for
a period of one year or till availability of
regularly selected candidate from the
UPSSSC or attaining the age of 65 years,
which ever is earlier. It also provided that
in the event of rendering satisfactory
services the period of one year shall be
extendable. The petitioners applied and
were selected and appointed on different
posts in terms of the advertisements issued
in August, 2018 and thereafter The
appointment letters also contained the
conditions
as
mentioned
in
the
advertisement. On the basis of the said
appointment letters petitioners joined and
started serving. On 26.03.2019, a video
conference meeting took place under the
chairmanship of Secretary, Department of
Ayush, U.P., in which Regional Ayurvedic
and Unani Officers, District Homeopathic
Officers and Principals of Ayurvedic and
Unani and Homeopathic Medical Colleges
along with the Directors of the department
were present. Number of decisions about
the functioning of the department were
taken and noted in the minutes of the said
meeting, relevant for us, Clause-21 of the
same notes, that, contractual appointment
shall be made only for a period of 11
months and in no circumstance contractual
employees shall be paid salary of 12
months. On the basis of the said noting in
the minutes of the meeting, the Director,
Homeopathy, U.P., by his letter dated
29.03.2019 asked the officials to initiate
action. Again, Director, Homeopathy issued
a letter dated 20.06.2019 instructing all the
principals of the government homeopathic
medical colleges and hospitals to discharge
contractual employee on expiry of their
4 All. Manju Verma & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
375
term of contract, till execution of any fresh
contract. In furtherance of the same
petitioners were discharged on different
dates on completion of the period of one
year from their respective appointments.
On 06.07.2019, the Director, Homeopathy
again issued a letter to the principals of all
State homeopathic medical colleges and
hospitals stating that the purpose for which
the teaching and other staff were appointed
on contract still exists, therefore, in the
public
interest/government
functioning,
even after completion of the contract period
their renewal is necessary and expedient,
and therefore, the contracts of teaching and
other staff detailed in the annexed list
should be renewed again, after creating a
break of one week, for a further period of
11 months or till the regular selection is
made for the said contract posts. Thus, the
services of the petitioners were extended
for a period of 11 months but, now after the
period of 11 months petitioners are again
discharged by the impugned orders by
respective principals from 2019 onwards.

3. Learned counsels for petitioners
submit that petitioners were appointed in
terms of the government order dated
27.10.2017. The decision to remove the
petitioners is contrary to the government
order and could not be taken by the
Secretary in a meeting of the department.
He further submits that it is not in dispute
that the nature and requirement of the said
work is permanent, as there is no decision
of the State Government to close the
homeopathic
medical
colleges
and
hospitals and that the decision taken is in
gross violation of the settled principal of
law, that, an adhoc employee cannot be
replaced by another adhoc employee.
Admittedly, till date, the selection process
for regular appointments is not even
initiated. Emphasis is also laid by him on
the fact that the government and principals
of respective colleges have jointly signed
duly notarized undertakings/affidavits and
indemnity bond before the Central Council
of Homeopathy, New Delhi, while seeking
recognition for the Academic Session 202021 and 2021-22, specifying the existing
teaching and non teaching staff of the
colleges including the names of the
petitioners. Thus, while seeking recognition
for the Academic Session 2020-21 and
2021-22 they had given the impression that
petitioners are working and they shall be
maintained. He further submits that the
teaching staff/doctors, similarly situated as
petitioners,
were
also
appointed
in
furtherance of similar government orders
on similar terms and conditions and were
also removed in similar manner. They filed
Writ Petition No.14731 (S/S) of 2020;
''Narendra Singh Sengar and Others Vs.
State of U.P. and Others' and other writ
petitions challenging their discharge. The
said writ petitions were filed almost on the
same grounds as the present writ petitions.
The said writ petitions were allowed by this
Court by its judgment and order dated
09.12.2020. The Court quashed the orders
of discharge of the doctors in the said writ
petitions and the government order dated
14.08.2020 which provided that their
services shall not be renewed. Petitioners in
the said writ petitions were further allowed
to work on their respective posts in their
respective colleges as per the government
order dated 28.05.2015 and 27.10.2017.
Thus, he draws strength from the said
judgment also.

4. Some of the petitioners before this
Court had filed a Writ-A No.2917 of 2021
''Devesh Shukla and 38 others Vs. State of
U.P. and 7 Others' at Allahabad and the said
writ petition was disposed of by this Court
by order dated 22.06.2021 providing:-
376 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

"In view of the above, on consent
and without expressing any opinion on the
merits of the issue and considering the facts
and circumstances of the case, this writ
petition is disposed of finally asking the
petitioners
to
move
an
appropriate
representation
before
the
competent
authority
ventilating
their
grievances
within two weeks from today and in case
any such representation is preferred the
same would be looked into, examined and
remedied in the light of the judgment in Dr.
Narendra Singh Sengar(supra) within four
weeks
from
the
date
of
filing
the
representation. "

5. The representations of petitioners
was rejected by order dated 29.07.2021 and
the said order is challenged by the
petitioners by way of a connected writ
petition, being Writ Petition No.22562
(S/S) of 2021 ''Abhishek Kumar and others
Vs. State of U.P. and Others'. Reason for
rejecting the representations by order dated
29.07.2021 are:-

(i) There are no statutory service
rules for recruitment of Nursing Staff like
the teaching staff, and

(ii)
There
was
no
cabinet
approval in regard to the appointment on
the posts of Store Superintendent, Swagati,
Telephone Operator and Registration Clerk.

6. The petitioners of the said writ
petition have also adopted the submissions
of other petitioners before this Court. They
further submit that both the grounds
mentioned for rejecting the representation
do not have any force; as mere absence of
any statutory rules would not impact the
submission of the petitioners that an ad-hoc
appointee cannot be replaced by another
ad-hoc appointee and further the ground
that there is not approval of the Cabinet
with regard to appointment on some of the
posts only would not impact majority of
posts and further that there is no necessity
of Cabinets' approval for contractual
appointment on the said Class-III posts.

7. Opposing the petitions, learned
Additional Chief Standing Counsel places
reliance upon government order dated
27.10.2017 and clause 21 of the minutes of
meeting. He submits that contractual
appointment could be made only for a
period of 11 months and could also be
renewed for a period of 11 months only,
with a break of one week. The government
letter
dated
14.08.2020
specifically
provides for non renewal of contract after
expiry of the said term. He submits that
there were large number of complaints filed
before the Lok Ayukt, U.P., with regard to
the said contractual appointments and
during inquiry it was found that contractual
appointments made were inappropriate and
illegal and thus were cancelled. He further
submits that there are no service rules
promulgated for the said posts and,
therefore, it is not possible to renew the
contract period of the petitioners and it was
decided to cancel the appointments by
government order dated 14.08.2020 and
proceed for re-selection on contract basis.
Since re-selection on contract basis is again
going to take place, it shall be open for the
petitioners also to participate in the same.
He lastly submits that the decision of the
state government is a policy decision and is
immune from judicial scrutiny as is held by
the Supreme Court in:

(i) Ugar Sugar Works Ltd. Vs.
Delhi Administration and Ors in Writ
Petition (Civil) 321 of 2000;

(ii) Punjab Communications Ltd.
Vs. Union of India & Others, (1999) 4 SCC
727;
4 All. Manju Verma & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
377

(iii) Maharashtra State Board of
Secondary
and
Higher
Secondary
Education Vs. Paritosh Bhupesh Kumar
Sheth, (1984) AIR 1543;

(iv) State of Punjab & Ors. Vs.
Ram Lubhaya Bagga, (1998) 4 SCC 117;

(v) Premium Granites Vs. State of
Tamil Nadu, (1994) AIR 2233 paragraphs
53, 54 and 56;

(vi) Delhi Science Forum Vs.
Union of India & Anr., 1996 AIR 1356
paragraph 52 and 59;

(vii) Krishnan Kakkanth Vs.
Government of Kerala, (1997) 9 SCC 5069
paragraph 32 and 36;

(viii) Surjit Singh Vs. State of
Punjab and Others, 1996 AIR 1388;

(ix) Bhavesh D. Parish Vs. Union
of India, (2000) 5 SCC 471 paragraph 23
and 26;

(x) BALCO Employees Union
Case (2002) 2 SCC 333;

(xi) Ashok Kumar Vs. Union
Territory, (1995) SCC 1631;

(xii) Narmada Bachao Case,
(2000) 10 SCC 664.

8. I have heard learned counsels for
parties and perused the record with their
assistance.

9. Before coming to the legal issues
involved it is necessary to clear the facts.
The State Government always treated the
teaching and non-teaching staff as separate
from each other. The teaching staff i.e.
doctors were appointed in furtherance of
separate
government
orders
dated
28.05.2015 and 11.04.2018 while the nonteaching
staff,
i.e.,
petitioners,
were
appointed in furtherance of government
order dated 27.10.2017. With regard to
doctors/teaching staff a government order
dated 14.08.2020 was issued providing that
their contract period may not be extended
any further and their services be dispensed
with for making fresh appointment. With
regard to non-teaching staff there is no such
order passed by the State Government. It
appears
that
the
authorities
in
the
department, without there being any order
of the State Government requiring removal
of the non-teaching staff, have under wrong
impression proceeded and passed order
with regard to non-teaching staff also. The
government order dated 14.08.2020 refers
to G.O. dated 28.05.2015 and 11.04.2018.
Both the said government orders are only
with regard to the teaching staff i.e.
doctors. In absence of any decision of the
State
Government,
the
departmental
officers including the director could not
have passed any order removing or refusing
to extend the contract period of the nonteaching staff. Thus, the entire exercise
conducted by the respondents is in
violation of the order of the State
Government itself.

Clause-21 of the minutes of video
conference meeting dated 26.03.2019 also
only states that no further appointment on
outsourcing shall be done unless budget is
arranged. It nowhere says anything about
the persons who were already working on
contract basis. Admittedly, the petitioners
were working on contract basis on
26.03.2019 and, therefore, since there case
is not covered by Clause-21 of the video
conference dated 26.03.2019, they cannot
be
removed
in
furtherance
thereof.
Admittedly,
the
contract
period
of
petitioners was extended between July,
2019 to December, 2019, i.e. after the
minutes of meeting dated 26.03.2019.
Therefore,
even
the
stand
of
the
respondents remained that the petitioners
were not covered by the decision taken in
the
video
conference
meeting
dated
26.03.2019.
378 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

10. From the above facts and
circumstance, I do not find any decision of
the State Government taken for removal of
the non-teaching staff which has completed
its contract period and for which till date no
direct selection is made. Clause-21 of the
minutes of video conference meeting dated
26.03.2019 merely states that contractual
employees shall be appointed for a period
of 11 months and shall not be paid salary of
12 months. Even after the said letter was
issued, the contractual employees were
continued for an earlier period of contract
of 12 months and on its expiry after giving
artificial break of one week, their contracts
were extended for a further period of 11
months. I do not find any direction to the
Director, Homeopathy from the State
Government requiring him to remove the
non teaching staff appointed on contract
basis and replace the same from fresh
contractual employees.

11. So far as the legal position is
concerned, there is settled principal of
service law that an adhoc employee cannot
be replaced by another adhoc employee.
The same finds mention in large number of
judgments including the judgment passed
in case of ''State of Haryana and Others
Vs. Piara Singh and Others', reported in
[(1992) 4 SCC 118], second condition of
paragraph-46 of the judgment holds:-

"46. Secondly, an ad hoc or
temporary employee should not be replaced
by another ad hoc or temporary employee;
he must be replaced only by a regularly
selected employee. This is necessary to
avoid arbitrary action on the part of the
appointing authority."

12. Though the judgment of Piara
Singh (supra) case is explained on certain
other legal preposition in some later
judgments of the Supreme Court but the
aforesaid preposition of law holds good till
date. It is not disputed in the present case
that the requirement of work is permanent
in nature as on instructions, the Standing
Counsel had submitted before this Court
that there is no decision taken by the State
Government till date for closure of the
aforesaid homeopathic medical colleges
and hospitals. Once, the nature of work is
permanent State Government is bound to
make regular appointments on the same.
Non-existence of statutory service rules
does not make any difference as the State
has co-extensive executive power for the
same. It is duty of the State Government to
forthwith frame the rules and make regular
selection as per law. In the garb of not
framing the rules State Government cannot
claim right to become arbitrary and hire
and fire at its own sweet will in the garb of
contractual appointment. The conduct of
the State has to be non arbitrary. Unless
strong reasons are provided it cannot
replace an ad-hoc employee with another
ad-hoc employee. The only reason provided
by the State Government for removing the
petitioners during the course of argument is
that there were large number of complaints
before the Lok Ayukt and in an inquiry it
was found that contractual appointments
were inappropriate or not legal. No such
inquiry report or other material is submitted
before this Court. There is no declaration
from any court that the appointments were
inappropriate or not legal. The said ground
also does not find mention in the discharge
orders. Thus, in absence of any material,
this Court does not find any force in the
said submission of the State Government.

13. So far as the last submission made
by
learned Additional
Chief
Standing
Counsel that the aforesaid decision of the
State Government is a policy decision and
4 All. Manju Verma & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
379
immune from the judicial scrutiny is
concerned, suffice would be to say that the
none of the judgment referred to by learned
Additional Chief Standing Counsel relates to
any service matter and all of them are with
regard to economic or financial policy of the
State. So far as the present case is concerned,
learned Standing Counsel could not place any
policy decision of the State Government
whereby it require removal of the contractual
employee, as is already held above. Even
presuming there is such a policy decision, the
Court can definitely look into a policy
decision basis of which violates the rule of
law. Where a policy decision is on the face of
it arbitrary and violates settled principal of
law, this Court has power to look into the
same also. Suffice to refer to the judgment of
the Supreme Court in case of ''Brij Mohan
Lal Vs. Union of India' reported in (2012) 6
SCC 502. In paragraph 99, 100 and 134 the
Court held that:-

"99. It is also a settled cannon of
law that the Government has the authority
and power to not only frame its policies, but
also to change the same. The power of the
Government, regarding how the policy should
be shaped or implemented and what should
be its scope, is very wide, subject to it not
being arbitrary or unreasonable. In other
words,
the
State
may
formulate
or
reformulate
its
policies
to
attain
its
obligations of governance or to achieve its
objects, but the freedom so granted is subject
to basic Constitutional limitations and is not
so absolute in its terms that it would permit
even arbitrary actions.

100. Certain tests, whether this
Court should or not interfere in the policy
decisions of the State, as stated in other
judgments, can be summed up as:

(I) If the policy fails to satisfy the
test of reasonableness, it would be
unconstitutional.

(II) The change in policy must be
made fairly and should not give impression
that it was so done arbitrarily on any
ulterior intention.

(III) The policy can be faulted on
grounds of mala fide, unreasonableness,
arbitrariness or unfairness etc.

(IV) If the policy is found to be
against any statute or the Constitution or
runs counter to the philosophy behind these
provisions.

(V) It is dehors the provisions of
the Act or Legislations.

(VI) If the delegate has acted
beyond its power of delegation.

134. The policy decision of the
State should be in public interest and taken
objectively. Ad hocism or uncertainty in the
State policy particularly relating to vital
factors of governance, may not bring the
requisite dividend. Reasons for taking a
policy decision would squarely fall in the
domain of the State, but it should be free
from element of arbitrariness and mala
fides."

14. In view of aforesaid, this Court
does not find any force in the stand taken
by learned Additional Chief Standing
Counsel. It is apparent that the petitioners
are
discharged
in
arbitrary
manner.
Admittedly, till date no other person have
been appointed on the said posts, therefore,
all the writ petitions are allowed and all the
impugned
discharge
orders
of
the
petitioners are set aside. The petitioners are
allowed to work on their respective posts in
their respective colleges as per government
orders dated 27.10.2017. However, in case,
any complaint is made/received, the State
Government
shall
be
at
liberty
to
examine/inquire the said complaint in
respect of each candidate as per law and
pass order on each case separately. The
State or the respondent/authorities shall
380 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
also be at liberty to examine performance
of each petitioner on their respective posts
before renewing their services after expiry
of
their
contract
period
and
pass
appropriate order in accordance with law.
----------
(2022)04ILR A380
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.12.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J.

Writ A No. 13866 of 2017

Ashish Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Hari Om, Sri A. Khare

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Abhishek Srivastava, Sri Ayank
Mishra, Sri J.P. Pandey

A. Service Law - Post of Junior Engineer
Electrical
(Trainee)
-
Qualification
-
Variation therein - Judicial review - Scope
of interference - Three years Diploma in
Electrical
Engineering
was
required,
however the petitioner possesses three
years Diploma in Electrical and Electronics
Engineering - Candidature rejected -
Validity challenged - There was lack of
necessary pleading that contents and
syllabus
of
three
years
in
Diploma
Electrical and Electronics Engineering are
identical
to
three
years
Diploma
in
Electrical Engineering - Effect- Held, it is
the domain of the employer to prescribe
qualification as a condition of eligibility -
The Court has no jurisdiction to expand
upon
the
ambit
of
prescribed
qualifications. (Para 12, 18 and 22)
Writ petition dismissed. (E-1)
List of Cases cited :-
1. Zahoor Ahmad Rather & ors. Vs Sheikh
Imtiyaz Ahmad & ors.; 2019 (2) SCC 404
2. Writ-A No.1092 of 2015; Shailendra Kumar
Rai & ors. Vs St. of U.P & ors.
3. W.C. (C) 6100/2012 & CM No. 16465/2012;
Ms. Nisha Vs Union of India & ors.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Saral Srivastava, J.)

1. Heard Sri Akash Khare, learned
counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Abhishek
Srivastava
learned
counsel
for
the
respondents-Corporation.

2. The petitioner through the present
writ petition has prayed for a direction
upon
respondents
to
consider
the
candidature
of
the
petitioner
for
appointment on the post of Junior Engineer
Electrical
(Trainee)
in
U.P.
Power
Corporation Ltd.

3. During the pendency of the writ
petition, the respondent has passed an order
on 25.03.2017 rejecting the candidature of
the petitioner which was challenged by the
petitioner by way of amendment in the writ
petition.

4. The case of the petitioner is that
pursuant
to
an
Advertisement
No.9/V5A/2016/JE notified on 09.10.2016
inviting online application for the post of
Junior Engineer Electrical (Trainee) under
the Electrical Engineer category, Junior
Engineer Civil (Trainee) under the category
of Civil Engineering, he has submitted
application for being considered on the said
post.

5. According to the petitioner, he has
three years diploma in Electrical and
Electronics Engineering from Tamil Nadu
Polytechnic College, Madurai recognized
by U.G.C. Thus, he possesses the essential