When a rejection of an appointment appears contrary to departmental recommendations and established judicial precedents, the appropriate remedy is to set aside the order and remit the matter for fresh consideration by the competent authority.

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT BEARING NO. ANU1/KHA/AH.PRANEMAKATHI ANUMODANE/35/2021-22 1234 DT. 14/08/2023 (10/08/2023) ISSUED BY THE R3 VIDE ANNEXURE-P AND ETC.,

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

ORAL ORDER

1. In this petition, petitioner seeks the following reliefs:

“i) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned endorsement bearing No.Anu1/Kha/Ah.PraNeMaKaThi/Anumodane/35/2021-22 1234 dt: 14.08.2023 (10.08.2023) issued by the 3rd respondent vide Annexure-P;

ii) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to approve the appointment of the petitioner to the post of Assistant Master in Arts at 5th respondent School and in the light of the recommendations of the 4th and 3rd respondents dt: 10.08.2021 and 12.12.2022 vide Annexures-J and K;

iii) Alternatively, direct the respondents 2 to 4 to approve the appointment of the petitioner with aid to the post of Assistant Master in Arts in the 5th respondent – School, retrospectively;

iv) And to issue such other orders, directions as deems fit in the circumstances of the case and allow the above writ petition with costs, in the interest of justice and equity.”

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned AGA for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and learned counsel for respondent No.5 and perused the material on record.

3. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the petition and referring to the material on record, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned endorsement at Annexure-P dated 14.08.2023 rejecting the request/application of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Assistant Master at respondent No.5 - School is contrary to the principles laid down in the case of Siraj Ahmad Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. – Civil Appeal No.9412/2019 dated 13.12.2019, as well as the recommendations of respondent Nos.3 and 4 at Annexures-J and K and as such, the impugned endorsement deserves to be quashed.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

5. Before adverting to the rival contentions, it would be necessary to extract the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Siraj Ahmad (supra), which reads as under:

“1. Leave granted.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

3. The appeal challenges the judgment and order dated 11-9-2017, passed by the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in W.P.(Service Bench)No.1020 of 2015, thereby dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant.

4. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are as under :

The appellant was appointed on ad hoc basis on the post of Junior Engineer in the pay scale of Rs 485-860 by order dated 30-3-1987, issued by Respondent 1. It is not in dispute that the said order was issued with prior approval of the Governor of Uttar Pradesh. It is also not in dispute that the said appointment was made after the post was advertised and after the appellant underwent the selection process conducted by the State under the provisions of the U.P. Development Authorities Centralised Services Rules, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as “the said Rules”). Pursuant to the selection and appointment, the appellant joined with the Agra Development Authority on 8-4-1987. While in service, the appellant obtained the degree in BSc Engineering from Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh on 8-6-1987. The appellant, thereafter, through proper channel communicated the respondents the fact regarding obtaining of requisite q