Narsingh Narayan Singh and Others vs State of U.P. and Others

Ritu Raj Awasthi, J.—The above two writ petitions involve same set of facts challenging the impugned Select List dated 14.2.2011, therefore, both the writ petitions are connected and a common order is being passed in both the writ petitions.

Notice on behalf of the opposite party Nos. 1 to 4 has been accepted by the learned Chief Standing Counsel.

Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioners as well as learned Standing Counsel.

It is submitted by the learned Counsels for the Petitioners that the name of the Petitioners of Writ Petition No. 1185 (SS) of 2011 was shown in the earlier Select List dated 22.11.2010, but in the impugned Select List dated 14.2.2011, their names do not find place and the name of the Petitioners of Writ Petition No. 1186 (SS) of 2011, were neither shown in the earlier Select List dated 22.11.2010 nor their names find place in the impugned Select List dated 14.2.2011.

It is further submitted that the Division Bench of this Court by judgment dated 04.5.2009 in Special Appeal No. 377 of 2008 and other connected matters has disposed of the Special Appeals with the following observations:

We, therefore, dispose of these special appeals with the directions that the Appellants'' cases shall be considered in accordance with the pre-existing practice by considering their appointment on the basis of their merit taking their batches into consideration as was being done earlier but this process would be available only for the Appellants and they would be accommodated if they are otherwise found eligible and the remaining vacancies would be filled in by following Rule 15 (2) strictly as directed by the learned Single Judge.

The contention of the Petitioners is that the benefit of the judgment passed in the above special appeal was restricted to the Appellants and as per the dictum of this Court, they were to be accommodated first before making the selection under Rule 15 (2) of the U.P. Pharmacists Service Rules, 1980.

The judgment passed by this Court has not been interfered with by the Hon''ble Apex Court in the SLPs filed by the State Government and the SLPs filed by the State Government have been dismissed.

Learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, submits that after passing of the Division Bench judgment, several writ petitions were filed in which this Court has extended the benefit of the judgment of the Division Bench to the concerning Petitioners.

It is further submitted that the impugned Select List has been prepared Batch-wise keeping in view the merit in respective batches, giving the benefit of reservation policy of State Government.

Be that as it may, this Court is of the view that the question with regard to determination of the Select List requires consideration.

Learned Standing Counsel is directed to seek instructions in the matter within a week.

Dr. Shobhnath, Director (Para Medical), Directorate of Medical Health, Swasthya Bhawan, Lucknow is present before the Court. He informs the Court that no appointment would be made in pursuance of the impugned Select List till the next date of listing.

In view of above, there is no need to pass any interim order.

List this case after one week, as fresh.