A.F.R.

Court No. - 4

1. Heard Mrs. Radhika Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent – State.

2. The present writ petition has been filed on following prayers:

“(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 26.11.2012 passed by the opposite party no.3 as contained in Annexure No.1 to this writ petition.

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding and directing the opposite parties to issue appointment letter to the petitioner for the post of Enforcement Constable being a regularly selected candidate against the lying vacant post at present.

(iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding and directing the opposite parties to allow the petitioner to continue to discharge his service from the post of Enforcement Constable against the vacant post with arm license consequential benefits.

(iv) Issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.

(v) Allow the writ petition with costs in favour of the petitioner.”

3. Factual matrix of the case is that opposite party no.2, namely, the Transport Commissioner, Uttar Pradesh, published an advertisement dated 10.08.2004 in the daily newspaper Dainik Jagran on 12.08.2004, inviting applications from eligible candidates for appointment against the existing as well as forthcoming vacancies on the post of Enforcement Constable. Pursuant to the said advertisement, the petitioner submitted his candidature and appeared before the departmental Selection Committee for interview and physical fitness test on 18.01.2005. The result of the selection process was declared in the last week of March, 2005.

4. It is further pleaded that the selection list was prepared on 24.03.2005 and was displayed on the notice board on 28.03.2005. The name of the petitioner figured at Serial No.54 in the select list of candidates belonging to the Other Backward Classes (OBC) category. According to the petitioner, at the time of issuance of the advertisement dated 10.08.2004, there were 50 posts of Enforcement Constable earmarked for the OBC category. By the time the final result was declared, five additional vacancies were stated to have arisen and, accordingly, the select list contained the names of 55 candidates. It is also the case of the petitioner that there was no provision for preparation of a waiting list.

5. The petitioner has further pleaded that, prior to the aforesaid selection, the Government of Uttar Pradesh, vide Government Order No.2118/Thirty-3-2003-3B/2002 dated 18.07.2003, had created 114 additional posts of Enforcement Constable. According to the petitioner, the said additional posts continued to remain vacant and available for appointment.

6. It is stated that after declaration of the select list, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 14.10.2005, followed by reminders dated 02.12.2005 and 27.12.2005, requesting the authorities to consider his candidature for appointment to the post of Enforcement Constable against the vacancies available under the Backward Class/OBC reservation quota. According to the petitioner, despite the representations and reminders, no appointment was offered to him.

7. The petitioner has further stated that, in February, 2006, one Bal Govind Upadhyay instituted Writ Petition No.1642 (S/S) of 2006 before this Court seeking a direction for his appointment. Thereafter, the opposite parties issued a fresh advertisement dated 11.03.2006 inviting applications for appointment to the post of Enforcement Constable. The said subsequent advertisement was challenged by Bal Govind Upadhyay by instituting Writ Petition No.2148 of 2006.

8. It is further pleaded that Imamuddin, who was also a selected candidate from the same select list in which the petitioner had been selected, instituted Writ Petition No.6809 (S/S) of 2005 as well as