The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a legally constituted selection committee and the grounds for cancelling selection lists under the U. P. Procedure for Direct recruitment for group-C Posts (out side the purview of the Uttar Pradesh Commission) Rules, 1998.

YATINDRA SINGH, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a writ petition for cancelling the selection of Respondent Nos. 3 to 8 which was made in pursuance of the interview held on 25th October, 1999. The facts are as follows :

( 2 ) THE District Magistrate, Sant Kabir Nagar published an advertisement on 10th August, 1999 for filling up the post of junior clerks in his Collectorate. These posts admittedly are out side the purview of Public Service Commission, and are covered by U. P. Procedure for Direct recruitment for group-C Posts (out side the purview of the Uttar Pradesh Commission) Rules, 1998 (the Rules ). A written test was held on 30th December, 1998 and successful candidates were called for interview. The interview was held on 12th March, 1999 and thereafter final select list was published on 16th March, 1999. Six persons were selected. Five of them are petitioners here and sixth person was respondent No. 8. However, no appointment letters were issued and the petitioners received a fresh letter dated 22nd October, 1999 on 23. 10. 1999 for appearing in the interview again on 25. 10. 1999. The subsequent interview was held and thereafter fresh selection list was published on 28th October, 1999. In this list none of the petitioners were selected and in their place respondents No. 3 to 7 were selected. Respondent No. 8 was again selected. This subsequent interview was held in pursuance of the Government Order dated 19th april, 1999. According to the petitioners they had not knowledge about the same and they came to know about it subsequently. According to this letter the earlier interview was cancelled as the selection committee was not properly constituted the petitioners have challenged this letter dated 19. 4. 1999, subsequent interview and the results on the basis of this subsequent interview.

( 3 ) I have heard Dr. R. G. Padia, learned Counsel for the petitioners learned Standing Counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2 and Sri V. K. Shukla, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 3. Following points arise for determination in this case :

(i) Whether the respondent No. 8 never appeared in the interview and he could not be selected? (ii) Whether the petitioners had appeared in the subsequent interview without there being any objection? Are they estopped from challenging the same? (iii) Whether the petitioners have any right to challenge the subsequent selection list? (iv) Whether the earlier selection list was rightly cancelled?

( 4 ) I have considered the aforesaid submission made by the parties. The respondents No. 1 and 2 have stated in their counter affidavits that the respondent No. 8 was selected as he got highest marks in the written examination but neither joined the service nor got his medical examination done. He has not been appointed. In view of this there is no necessity to consider this point.

( 5 ) THE respondents submit that petitioners had appeared in the subsequent interview without any objection and they are estopped from challenging the selection. It is true that the petitioners appeared in the subsequent interview without any objection. The petitioners were given notice dated 22. 10. 1999 for the subsequent interview. It was served upon them on 23. 10. 1999. They were asked to appear in the interview on 25. 10. 1999. There was only one day in between. The petitioners could not take any legal proceeding and as such it would be inequitable to estop the petitioners from raising the illegality of the subsequent interview.

( 6 ) IT is true that the selection list does not confer any right. However, the fact remains that the petitioners were selected and the vacancies continued. The selection list cannot be cancelled arbitrarily. It can only be cancelled on reasonable grounds, in case the selection list has been cancelled on arbitrary grounds the person already selected has right to maintain the writ petition.

( 7 ) SRI Shukla, Counsel for respondent No. 7 submitted that earlier selection was mala fide and for extraneous grounds. It w

Click Here to Read the rest of this document