Chandan Singh vs State of U.P. and Others

Amitava Lala, J.—The petitioner has filed this writ petition basically in the nature of quo warranto for ousting the respondent Nos. 4 to 22, from the office and post of Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) forthwith, with a further prayer for issuance of writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 10th July, 2008 and order dated 16th April, 2009. He also sought for a direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 to appoint the petitioner as Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Div.). The petitioner has relied upon a Supreme Court judgment Sanjay Singh and Another Vs. U.P. Public Service Commission, Allahabad and Another, wherein the scaling system was challenged. However, the Supreme Court has come to a conclusion to give appointment to Archana Rani, a petitioner, on the basis of the marks obtained by her being more than the marks obtained by the last selected candidate under the Scheduled Caste category, and after adding interview marks, her candidature should be considered for appointment. Such Archana Rani has been given appointment under one of the order impugned dated 10th July, 2008. Even at the time of granting the relief the Supreme Court has held in such judgment as follows:

This relief will be available only to such of the petitioner who have approached this court and the High Court before 31st August, 2005.

According to the petitioner advertisement was made for 347 posts. The selection has been made and Supreme Court has approved the selection but they are only on the basis of the contempt application arising out of the matter of Sanjay Singh (Supra) in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 51491 of 2007,which was disposed of on 17.01.2008. Penultimate paragraph is as follows:

Thus, in view of the above, we direct the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to reconsider the issue as to whether the aforesaid respondent Nos. 3 to 22 and other similar situate candidates or either of them had approached this Court or the Hon''ble Supreme Court on or before 31st August, 2005 raising the issue of scaling or not without being confused with the issues involved in another case of Malik Mazhar Sultan and Another Vs. U.P. Public Service Commission and Others, as the said judgment had been given full effect while making appointments quo the selection of 2003 and was confined to the issue of maximum age fixed only. The aforesaid exercise may be undertaken by the Commission expeditiously and fresh orders may be passed in accordance the directions issued by the Hon''ble Supreme Court, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is filed before its Secretary.

According to the petitioner that contempt petition about the appointment in relation to matter of Sanjay Singh (Supra) is pending.

According to us, in the matter of Sanjay Singh both in the High Court and the Supreme Court the cut of date for approaching the Court is given 31st August, 2005 but neither the petitioner has approached either the High Court or the Supreme Court before 31st August, 2005. Moreover, one of the indirect challenge is appointment of Archana Rani by the impugned order dated 10th July, 2008. The writ petition appears to be not only belated but totally misconceived in nature. The writ petitioner become unsuccessful in the selection process and filed this writ petition to issue a writ in the nature of quo warranto to reopen the issue, which can not be allowed by this Court. Therefore, in totality the writ petition is dismissed, however, without imposing any cost.

Amitava Lala, J.

I agree.