Advocates:
['SHIV POOJAN YADAV', '', 'SUNIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA', 'Shri Ashok Khare', 'C S C', '', 'ABHISHEK SRIVASTAVA', 'RAMENDRA PRATAP SINGH', 'SEEMANT SINGH']

Court No. - 39

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 157 of 2018

Appellant :- Jaivindra And 86 Others

Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 61 Others

Counsel for Appellant :- Shiv Poojan Yadav,Sunil Kumar Srivastava,Shri

Ashok Khare

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Abhisheka Srivastava,Ramendra Pratap

Singh,Seemant Singh

With

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 251 of 2018

Appellant :- Vijay Kumar Rai And 7 Others

Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others

Counsel for Appellant :- Shiv Poojan Yadav,Sunil Kumar Srivastava,Ashok

Khare

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Abhishek Srivastava,Ramendra Pratap

Singh

With

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 252 of 2018

Appellant :- Rakesh Kumar And Another

Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others

Counsel for Appellant :- Shiv Poojan Yadav,Shri Ashok Khare,Sunil Kumar

Srivastava

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Abhishek Srivastava,Ramendra Pratap

Singh

With

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 253 of 2018

Appellant :- Sachchida Nand And 20 Others

Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others

Counsel for Appellant :- Sunil Kumar Srivastava,Shiv Poojan Yadav,Ashok

Khare

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Abhishek Srivastava,Ramendra Pratap

Singh

With

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 254 of 2018

Appellant :- Krish Aryan And 35 Others

Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others

Counsel for Appellant :- Shiv Poojan Yadav,Shri Ashok Khare,Sunil Kumar

Srivastava

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Abhishek Srivastava,Ramendra Pratap

Singh

2

With

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 255 of 2018

Appellant :- Jaivindra And 19 Others

Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others

Counsel for Appellant :- Shiv Poojan Yadav,Sunil Kumar Srivastava,Ashok

Khare

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Abhishek Srivastava,Ramendra Pratap

Singh

With

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 293 of 2018

Appellant :- Shailendra Kumar Singh

Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others

Counsel for Appellant :- Pawankumar Dubey

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Abhishek Srivastava,Rahul Pandey

Hon'ble Dilip Gupta,J.

Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.

Special Appeal Defective No. 157 of 2018 has been filed against the

judgement and order dated 7 October 2017 by which a learned Judge of this

Court has allowed Writ Petition No. 58918 of 2016 (Suneel Kumar And 46

Ors. Vs. State of U.P. And 13 Ors.) and a direction has been issued to redraw

the select list dated 9 December 2016 issued by the Secretary, Electricity

Service Commission, Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation¹, for making

appointments on the post of Technician Grade-II pursuant to the advertisement

dated 3 May 2016. A further direction has been issued to the respondents to

consider the claim of the petitioners on the basis of the marks obtained by

them in the written examination conducted by the Commission and if found

eligible for inclusion in the select list, then to modify the select list and take

consequential action as per law.

The remaining Special Appeal Nos. 251 of 2018, 252 of 2018, 253 of

2018, 254 of 2018, 255 of 2018 and 293 of 2018 have been filed against the

judgement and order dated 8 March 2018 by which a learned Judge of this

Court has dismissed the writ petitions that had been filed for restraining the

respondents from taking any action against the petitioners on the basis of

1

The Commission

3

revised select list dated 9 December 2016 issued by the Secretary of the

Commission and not to interfere in the working of the petitioners as

Technician Grade-II-Apprentice (Electrical). The amended relief claimed is

for quashing the order of Chief Engineer (Hydel) dated 13 December 2017 by

which the services of the petitioners have been terminated because their names

do not appear in the redrawn select list dated 12 December 2017.

The record reveals that an advertisement dated 3 May 2016 was issued

for appointment of 623 Technician Grade-II (Trainee) Electrical. The

candidates had to first appear in a written examination and those found

successful in the written examination were required to report for