By the Court.—These two appeals arise out of a judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court passed in Writ Petition No. 13138 of 1992 wherein both the appellants in the present appeals were arrayed as respondent Nos. 4 and 5 respectively. The writ petition was filed by the respondent No. 5 Anil Kumar Goel questioning the selection committee proceedings for selection to the post of Accountant in the respondent Jal Sansthan.

2. The challenge proceeded in the writ petition on the ground that the writ petitioner Anil Kumar Goel was much senior to both the appellants and therefore, having been wrongly superseded on account of adoption of a wrong criteria, the selections deserve to be set aside. The respondent petitioner had also moved a representation before the respondent-authority of the Jal Sansthan which was rejected on 28.5.92. The same was also assailed by means of an amendment application in the writ petition.

3. The learned Single Judge proceeding on the assumption that the post was a promotional post, and the criteria for selection to the said post was seniority-cum-merit, allowed the writ petition relying on certain decisions of the Apex Court which are referred to by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment. It was further recorded by the learned Single Judge that from a perusal of the impugned order there was no lack of any qualification on the part of the writ petitioner and, therefore, the criteria adopted by the respondent Jal Sansthan dominantly being comparative merit, has vitiated the selection, as the same could not have been adopted, as per the rules applicable and in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in this regard. The selection and appointment of the appellants was accordingly quashed with a direction to hold the selection for the post in question afresh in accordance with law.

4. The appellants have come up with a case that their selections as Accountants was valid and that the respondent-writ petitioner lacked the minimum qualification for being appointed on the post in question. They further alleged that the minimum qualification required is the same as prescribed for the post of Accountant for similarly situate employees under the Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam, 1959. They contend that the aforesaid aspects of the matter have been incorrectly construed and pleadings were over looked by the learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition and therefore the judgment and order is liable to be set aside.

5. The matter had been argued on earlier occasions and we had called upon the learned counsel for Jal Sansthan to clarify the position with regard to the qualification and the criteria that was to be adopted for the purpose of selection on the post in question. A counter affidavit on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 has been filed in both the appeals and the writ petitioner-respondent Anil Kumar Goel has also filed a short counter affidavit in Special Appeal No. 1029 of 2009 to which a rejoinder affidavit has also been filed on behalf of the appellants.

6. We have heard Sri K.R. Sirohi learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Rajeev Gupta for the appellant in Special Appeal No. 1029 of 2009 and Sri Shashi Nandan learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Abhishek Srivastava and Sri Sudeep Harkauli in Special Appeal No.1109 of 2009. Sri P.C. Jain learned counsel has been heard for the Jal Sansthan and Sri S.P. Giri has been heard for the respondent writ petitioner Anil Kumar Goel.

7. Before proceeding to examine the claim of either sides, it is necessary to clear of the web that has clouded the controversy, as to us it appears, the learned Single Judge was not assisted properly either on facts or in law and, therefore, the same has resulted in the emergence of a new case altogether before us.

8. It is undisputed that the appellants as well as the writ petitioner Anil Kumar Goel were all working as Accounts Clerk in the Jal Sansthan. The post about which the controversy has a