JUDGMENT :

Abdul Moin, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing counsel appearing for the State-respondents.

2. By means of the present petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-

"(a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari, quashing the impugned promotion order dated 20.01.2015 issued by the opp.-party no. 3, as contained in Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition.

(b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, commanding the opp-parties, particularly opp-parties no. 3 and 4 to constitute a fresh Departmental Selection/Promotion Committee and to conduct a fresh writeen test, typing test and interview for selection and promotion of employees from Group-D to Group-C post by complying with the Guidelines and Government order Dated 19.08.2014, contained in Annexure No. 6 to the writ petition.

(c) Issue such other order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the circumstances of the case in the favour of the petitioner, and;

(d) award the costs of the petition in favour of the petitioner.

3. The case set forth by the petitioner is that he was appointed as a Class IV employee by the respondents in the year 2005 and has been working since then on the said post. On 16.10.2014, the respondent no. 3 issued an order for holding a departmental examination for a Class III post of Junior Assistant in terms of provisions of dk;kZy; fyfid oxhZ; ¼inksUurh }kjk HkrhZ½ fu;ekoyh] 2001 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules, 2001") for which a typing test was scheduled to be held between 28.10.2014 to 30.10.2014 at Lucknow. Copy of the said order is annexure 5 to the writ petition. A Government order dated 19.08.2014 had also been issued, a copy of which is annexure 6 to the petition for the purpose of videography in the examination hall while holding the typing test for promotion to Group C post. The petitioner claims to have participated in the typing test but according to him, no videography was carried out on the said date of examination. Subsequently, when the result was declared of the typing test, the petitioner was declared as passed and his name figured at Serial No. 15 in the list of passed candidates which was issued along with a covering letter dated 11.11.2014, copy of which is annexure 7 to the writ petition. Thereafter, the petitioner appeared in the written examination and viva-voce which was held on 18.11.2014. Even before the result was declared claims were made of malpractices in the said examination through a complaint by an Ex-President of the Class IV Employee Union to the Government on 16.01.2015 and 19.01.2015, copies of which have been filed cumulatively as annexure 8 to the petition. The result was thereafter declared on 20.01.2015, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the petition in which the petitioner was not declared selected. Being aggrieved, the petitioner submitted a representation before the respondent no. 2 on 31.01.2015, a copy of which is annexure 9 to the petition and when no action has been taken, the present petition has been filed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner while seeking to challenge the result dated 20.01.2015 declaring various persons as selected contends that a perusal of the result would indicate that various ineligible persons have been declared as selected while the petitioner who had the requisite speed of typing and had also passed the typing test, has not been declared as selected in the final result whereby casting a suspicion on the final result.

5. Elaborating this, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that once a Government order dated 19.08.2014 had been issued for the purpose of videography in the typing test yet no videography was conducted on the date of the typing examination thus it is apparent that the Government order was flagrantly and deliberately violated with the result that those persons who had no knowledge of typing were impersonated by outsiders and had the Governmen