The selection process under the Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service Rules was properly executed, and the Governor's decision regarding candidate suitability was upheld, leaving no grounds for inclusion of the petitioner.

ORDER

1. Heard Sri Suvansit Kumar Jaiswal, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for State-respondent and Sri Rahul Agarwal, learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 3.

2. This writ petition has been filed praying for following relief :-

(a) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari calling for the records and quashing the order dated (the exact date of the order rejecting the representation of the petitioner has not been communicated to the petitioner) by which the representation dated 02.02.2021 of the petitioner has been rejected.

(b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no. 1 to include the name of petitioner in the select list dated 01.10.2020 prepared under Rule 5(1) read with Sub- Rule 4 of Rule 18 of Uttar Pradesh High Judicial Services Rules, 1975, for the purpose of making appointment pursuant to U.P.H.J.S.-2018 Examination.

(c) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent nos. 1 to 3 to consider the candidature of the petitioner for appointment pursuant to U.P.H.J.S.- 2016 Examination, against the two vacant general category seats falling vacant as unforeseen / unfilled due to unfortunate demise of Mr. Yogesh Kumar and upon the cancellation of candidature of one Mr. Pradeep Kumar by State Govt., in the interest of justice.

(d) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no. 1 to forward the select list containing the name of the petitioner to the Hon'ble Governor for appropriate action under Rule 22 of the Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service Rule, 1975.

(e) Pass any other to further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

(f) To award the cost of the petition to the petitioner.

3. Briefly stated facts of the present case are that pursuant to the advertisement for "Direct Recruitment to the Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service-2016" inviting applications for 72 posts, the petitioner submitted application and participated in the selection process.

4. Sri Rahul Agarwal, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 and 3 has stated that first tentative result was declared on 18.08.2017 which, in view of Hon'ble Supreme Court's order in Civil Appeal No. 1698 of 2020 (Dheeraj Mor vs. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi) and other connected appeals decided on 19.02.2020; was revised and final result was declared on 01.10.2020 after approval of the Governor of State of Uttar Pradesh. In general category, the selections were recommended by the High Court for 37 candidates but Governor found one candidate unsuitable and accordingly, approved the list of only 36 candidates of general category. Thus, the final result was declared containing names of 36 successful candidates.

5. The basis of grievance of the petitioner to seek relief in the present writ petition is reflected in paragraphs 17 and 28 of the writ petition, which are reproduced below :-

17. That in the Revised Result of U.P.H.J.S.-2016, only 36 candidates had been declared successful on general category seats whereas there were 37 notified seats allotted for General category candidates but petitioner's name was not included as selected candidate in that Revised Result dated 1st October, 2020 & one seat of general category was kept as unforeseen / unfilled even after expiry of a period of 3 and half years at the stage of Revised Result declared on 1st October, 2020 for reasons not known whatsoever. A true copy of final revised result of U.P.H.J.S.-2016 dated 01.10.2020 is being herewith and marked as Annexure No. 5 to this writ petition.

28. That further as per the provisions contain