Point of law: it is always permissible for the authority not to perpetuate illegality once having been noticed and here in the instant case, from the initial stage itself, before allowing the petitioner to resume, this mistake has been found which is rectified and therefore, action cannot be said to be arbitrary in any form

JUDGMENT :

1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed for the purpose of seeking following reliefs:-

(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ in nature of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondent to immediately permit the petitioner to resume his duties as Hindi Officer pursuant to his selection as per appointment order.

(B) Your Lordships may be pleased to declare and hold the impugned action of not permitting the petitioner to resume duties as illegal, unjust, improper and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

(C) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to issue an order restraining the respondent, their agents and servants from filling up the post of Hindi Officer pursuant to advertisement placed at Annexure-A.

(D) …............”

2. The case of the petitioner is that he made an application for the post of Hindi officer pursuant to the advertisement which was issued in ‘Hindustan Job’ dated 3rd/9th July 2011. The petitioner fulfills all requisite qualifications for the post in question, as such applied and after process of interview, it has been communicated to the petitioner on 25.2.2012 that he came to be selected for the post in question. For the purpose of resumption of duty, he approached the respondent authority on 9.3.2012, however was not allowed to resume the duty and instead was handed over a letter dated 12.3.2012. Immediately on next day, a clarification came to be issued by the petitioner pointing out as to why such discrepancy, as pointed out by the authority, occurred but nonetheless, he was not allowed to resume the duty. After coming back to hometown at Varanasi, he re-arranged all the papers and testimonials and again handed over in person on 22.3.2012 but, the respondent authority has not acceded to the request of the petitioner and the action has been taken disallowing the petitioner to resume the duty pursuant to the selection.

3. The petition appears to have been admitted with an interim protection that one post of Hindi officer be kept vacant and from time to time, the petition got adjourned, which has now come up for final hearing before this Court.

4. Upon request of learned advocates for the parties, the matter is taken up for hearing, wherein learned advocate Mr. T.R. Mishra, representing the petitioner has submitted that the action on the part of the respondent authority in not allowing the petitioner to resume the duty is absolutely unjust, arbitrary and tilted with malafides. It has been submitted that this action on the part of the respondent authority tantamounts to canceling the appointment of the petitioner which has been offered to the petitioner, and as such, same ought to have been done after due compliance of the principles of natural justice. On the contrary, Mr. Mishra has submitted that the petitioner was not lacking any eligibility criteria and the selection has been undertaken of the petitioner after due verification of all the relevant papers, including the original, and therefore, the subsequent action in the form of communication dated 12.3.2012 reflecting on page 17 is an afterthought and for the reasons best known to the respondent authority and as such, since this action is absolutely unjust and arbitrary, left with no alternate, the petitioner is constrained to approach this Court.

5. Learned advocate Mr. Mishra has taken the Court to various documents to justify that whatever experience which is needed for the post is already secured by the petitioner and on the basis of mere typographical error, if any mistake has occurred, same ought to have been unnoticed by the University, especially when proper selection has taken place of the petitioner. To strengthen the submission, Mr. Mishra has relied upon one decision delivered by the Apex Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh And Another Vs. Laxmishankar Mishra reported