IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of upholding the credibility of the recruitment process in public employment and the prohibition of nepotism in appointments.

JUDGMENT :

Attau Rahman Masoodi, J.

1. The appellant herein feeling aggrieved against the judgment dated 25.01.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ-A No. 20207 of 2016 has filed the present intra-Court appeal questioning the legality of the same.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that a post of Information Officer fell vacant in the Secretariat of Legislative Assembly, Uttar Pradesh in the year 2015. An advertisement was issued for filling up the said post on 27.05.2015, which, for ready reference, to the extent of prescription of essential academic qualification and preferential, is extracted hereunder:-

^^2- 'kSf{kd ;ksX;rk ,oa vU; vgZrk;saA

¼d½& vfuok;Z vgZrk

¼,d½&Hkkjr esa fof/k }kjk LFkkfir fdlh fo'ofo|ky; ls ,d fo"k; ds :i esa fgUnh ds lkFk Lukrd mikf/k ;k ljdkj }kjk led{k ekU;rk izkIr dksbZ mikf/k]

¼nks½&i=dkfjrk esa fMIyksek ;k 5 o"kZ dk i=dkfjrk dk vuqHkoA

¼[k½&vf/kekuh vgZrk

¼1½&lekpkj i=ksa vkSj if=dkvksa esa ys[k] iVdFkk vkSj Qhpj fy[krs dk vuqHko

¼2½&Hkkjr esa fof/k }kjk LFkkfir fdlh fo'ofo|ky; ls ;k ljdkj }kjk mlds led{k ekU;rk izkIr fdlh laLFkk ls i=dkfjrk esa Lukrd mikf/k

¼3½&ljdkj }kjk ekU;rk izkIr fdlh laLFkk ls laxhr@izdk'k&OoLFkk@vfHkuo@funsZ'ku bR;kfn esa fMIyksekA

ik= vH;fFkZ;ksa esa ls lk{kkRdkj ds vk/kkj ij p;u fd;k tk;sxkA lk{kkRdkj esa lfEEkfyr gksus gsrq vH;fFkZ;ksa dks dksbZ ;k=k HkRRkk vkfn ns; ugha gksxkA

;fn dksbZ vH;FkhZ vius mEEkhnokjksa ds fy, izR;{k ;k vizR;{k :i ls vFkok vU; lk/kuksa }kjk vius i{k esa leFkZu izkIr djus dk iz;Ru djsxk rks og vugZ dj fn;k tk;sxkA**

The process of selection was by way of interview, besides some other norms.

3. The period for submission of application forms against the advertisement was specified from 27.05.2015 to 17.06.2015. The appellant’s application itself came to be filed under surreptitious circumstances. As per the material placed on record that too at the appellate stage, an application is said to have been presented before the Hon’ble Speaker, Legislative Assembly, U.P. on 15.06.2015 which was registered vide Sl. No. 716 and on the same very application, Hon’ble the Speaker made an endorsement to the effect of granting permission to participate in the selection. The application seeking permission to participate in the process of selection on the post of Information Officer did not mention the rule under which the same was presented. The advertisement, on the other hand, required the eligible candidates to submit their application forms in the prescribed format. There is no explanation in the counter affidavit filed by the appellant as to when the application form alongwith the permission was filed by the appellant.

4. It appears that the process of selection i.e., interview took place on 28.12.2015 and the appellant as well as respondent No. 4 alongwith other candidates participated in the selection. The result of the selection remained undeclared although some complaints raising sense of doubt regarding induction of the appellant alone came to be made which went unnoticed. The counter affidavits filed by the appellant as well as Vidhan Sabha nowhere have disclosed as to when the result of the selection was declared. There is also a contradiction in paras – 8 and 11 of the counter affidavit filed by the Vidhan Sabha. In the process of scrutiny only 23 candidates were found eligible which shows that the appellant was not inclusive. In para – 11, it is stated that 24 candidates were called for interview.

5. The record reveals that an order of appointment was issued in favour of the appellant on 14.07.2016, whereafter, the respondent No.4/petitioner feeling aggrieved approached this Court by means of Writ Petition No. 20207 (SB) of 2016. The writ petition was dismissed by means of judgment and order dated 27.02.2018 on the ground that after participation in the selection, the respondent No.4 (petitioner in the writ petition) could not turn around and challenge the selection.

6. The judgment rendered by the Writ Court was assailed by the respondent No.4