Back
2006 Supreme(All) 957
[2006(9) ADJ 603 (All)]
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
BEFORE : ARUN TANDON, J.
SATISH KUMAR YADAV AND OTHERS —Petitioners
Versus
STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS Respondents
(Civil Misc. Writ Petition Nos. 60077 of 2005, 2246 of 2005 and 2175 of 2006, decided on 31st March, 2006)
Ashok Khare, D.S. Mishra and Rajeev Mishra for the Petitioners; C.B. Yadav, C.S.C., Surendra Kumar Singh, H.S. Rai, S.C. for the Respondents.
Headnote:(A) Selection—Post of Livestock Extension Officer (Pashudhan Prasar Adhikari) (Class III post)—In Animal Husbandry Department—Advertisement therefor—Published on 29th December, 2004 and written examination took place on 11th September, 2005—U.P. Animal Husbandry Department Livestock Extension and Poultry Development Service Rules, 2002—Which was published in official Gazette on 16th July, 2005—Cannot be applied to such selection, as it cannot be given retrospective applicability in view of settled law—Selection made on basis of applying Rule 15 of Service Rules, 2002—Against law—Such selection be made applying U.P. Procedure for Direct Recruitment for Group ‘C’ Posts (Outside the Purview of U.P. Public Service Commission) Rules, 2002—Because only this Commission Rules, 2002 will be applicable—Consequently, selection quashed and direction issued for fresh selection applying Commission Rules, 2002, within earliest possible time—Several other relevant factors—Highlighted. [U.P. Animal Husbandry Department Livestock Extension and Poultry Development Service Rules, 2002, Rule 15—U.P. Procedure for Direct Recruitment for Group ‘C’ Posts (Outside the Purview of U.P. Public Service Commission) Rules, 2002, Rule 3(3)(iii)]. [Paras 21, 22, 24, 25, 39 and 40]
(B) Selection—Post of Livestock Extension Officer (Pashudhan Prasar Adhikari) (Class III post)—In Animal Husbandry Department—Procedure mentioned in Rule 15—Requirements thereof—Stated—Selection made without complying these requirements, starting from constitution of selection committee, nomination of nominee and prescribing of Syllabus for written examination—Vitiates entire selection—Word ‘prescribe’ used in ‘note’ of Rule 15—Connotation of—Clarified—Several other relevant features connected with—Elaborated. [U.P. Animal Husbandry Department Livestock Extension and Poultry Development Service Rules, 2002, Rule 15]. [Paras 28, 29 and 31 to 38]
Hon’ble Arun Tandon, J.—Heard Sri Ashok Khare, Senior Advocate, Sri D.S. Mishra Advocate, Rajeev Mishra Advocate along with the assisting Counsels on behalf of the petitioners and Chief Standing Counsel on behalf of the State Respondents.
2. Pleadings have been exchanged between the parties in the connected matters, there being no dispute on facts, parties agree that all the writ petitions may be decided finally at this stage itself.
3. These writ petitions are directed against the selections held for the post of Livestock Extension Officer (Pashudhan Prasar Adhikari) in the Animal Husbandry Department of State of U.P. with reference to the advertisement published by the Department on 29.12.2004. The post of Livestock Extension Officer is a Class-Ill post within the Animal Husbandry Department of the State of U.P. Appointment on the aforesaid post was earlier regulated under a Government Order dated 21.3.1996.
The Dispute :
4. An advertisement dated 10th August, 1998 was published by the Director, Animal Husbandry Department U.P. inviting applications for appointment against 180 posts of Livestock Extension Officer. Petitioner No. 1 of Writ Petition No. 6175 of 2006, along with other candidates, applied in pursuance to the said advertisement, as according to the petitioner he fulfilled all the qualifications prescribed. The petitioner was not permitted to participate in the said selection. He, therefore, filed Writ Petition No. 29891 of 1998, wherein an interim order was granted on 18th September, 1998 directing the Department to provisionally permit the petitioner to appear in the examination test. The petitioner accordingly appeared in the written test so held. However, the result of the same was not declared.
5. The State Government vide Government Order dated 26.8.1999 cancelled the selections so held. The order of the State Government cancelling selections of the year, 1998 is under challenge in Writ Petition No. 4247(SS) of 1999; Satish Kumar Rai v. State of U.P., which is pending consideration before the Lucknow Bench of this Court.
6. Thereafter fresh advertisements were published between 11.4.2003 to 23.5.2003 for filling up 129 post of Livestock Extension Officer by different Deputy Directors of different division of the Animal Husbandry Department. Written examinations were held at divisional level on 21.5.2003. The results of the written examinations were declared on 24.5.2003. However, the said selections were challenged by means of Writ Petition No. 23956 of 2003 before this Court wherein an interim order was passed on 15.7.2003. Under the said interim order the entire selection process initiated in pursuance of the advertisement of the year 2003 was stayed. It was further provided that if any selections have been held, respondents shall not make any appointments unless directed by this Court. This interim order of the Hon’ble Single Judge was modified by a Divisional Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No. 258 of 2003 vide order dated 25.8.2003 to the extent that selections were directed to be completed, however, respondents were restrained from issuing any appointment letter to the selected candidates. This petition is also being decided by this Court separately.
7. On 29th December, 2004 an other advertisement was published by the Director, Animal Husbandry Department inviting applications against 489 posts of Livestock Extension Officer throughout the State of U.P. (Petitioners of Writ Petition No. 2175 of 2006 applied in pursuance of the said advertisement and were issued Admit Cards bearing Roll Nos. 806 and 94 respectively).
8. The advertisement itself was challenged by means of connected Writ Petition No. 2246 of 2005 by the petitioners therein. In the said writ petition an interim order was passed by this Court on 27.1.2005 and it was provided that the selections may proceed, however, no one shall be sent for training or issued appointment letter.
9. Subsequent to the interim order of this
