JUDGMENT
R.B. Misra, J.
1. Heard Sri S.C. Verma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri M.C. Chaturvedi, Addl. Chief Standing Counsel alongwith Sri S.B. Pandey and Sri S.P. Singh, learned Standing Counsel.
2. In the petition prayer has been made for issuance of mandamus directing the respondents to appoint to petitioner on the post of Gram Panchayat Adhikari (Category’Ga’).
3. It appears that an advertisement was published for recruitment of Gram Panchayat Adhikari (Category ‘Ga’) in the office of the Panchayat Raj Adhikari, Budaun and the petitioner has appeared to the said selection and was shown at Serial No. 1 in the waiting list and since one vacancy at Serial No. 13 in the merit list was kept open, therefore, he was entitled to be incorporated originally in the select list and was to be given appointment alongwith other selected persons. This Court has heard at length and has passed an order on 25.9.2003 which reads as below:
“It appears that an advertisement was published for recruitment of 35 posts of Gram Panchayat Adhikari (Samuh ‘Ga’) in the office of the Panchayat Raj Adhikari, Budaun where 17 posts were for General category candidates, 10 posts for Backward Class category candidates and 8 posts for S.T./S.C. category candidates.
Undisputedly the petitioner being eligible participated along with large number of candidates and appeared in the written test on 13.12.1998 bearing Roll No. 005803 and about 7500 candidates applied for only 140 candidates were declared pass and were called for interview. The petitioner also appeared in the interview on 18.3.1999 before the duly selected Committee and when the result was declared on 23.3.1999 the petitioner’s name was shown at Serial Number First in the waiting list and in the merit list Serial Number 13 was kept open and vacant and no name was referred at Serial No. 13.
The counter-affidavit has been filed indicating that it has not been denied that the petitioner was placed at waiting list at Serial No. 1 and 17 candidates were to be recruited in General category. The only denial of appointment and pronouncing the petitioner in the select list is that when the State Government by GO. No. 1642/33-1-99, Govt. of U.P. Panchayat Raj-1, dated 12th April, 1999 has declared the cadre of Gram Panchayat Adhikari as a dying cadre. It is very surprising that when the candidate had appeared in the interview and according to the marks obtained in the interview a merit list was prepared, in what circumstances Serial No. 13 was kept open. It is not known who was expected to be inserted in Serial No. 13, it also not known by the order for whom the Serial No. 13 was kept open. According to the petitioner if the proper select list was prepared the petitioner might have been kept at Serial No. 17 of the select list and by virtue of such placement he might have been given appointment, however the present anomalous situation appeared which prima facie shows arbitrariness and unfairness, therefore, are to be explained by the respondents, otherwise inquiry, would be made and entire select list shall be set aside. For this purpose, the Chief Development Officer, Budaun is directed to be physically present before this Court along with all the records pertaining to the selection and the affidavit explaining the situation by next date of hearing alongwith his associates or he should send/depute some senior officer for filing the reply and ensure the placement of all the original records before this Court. In absence of reply it should be presumed that there is a discrepancy, arbitrariness, illegality and irregularity in preparation of the select list and out of the respondents Chief Development Officer, Budaun shall be issued bailable warrant to be present in the Court along with original records for giving satisfactory explanation for the irregularities committed in the selection.
Copy of this order shall be given free of cost to Sri S.S. Sharma, learned Standing Counsel who will convey to the Chief Development Officer, Budaun, District Magistrate, Budaun and Secretary, Panchayat Raj, State of U.P. In addition to the communication sent by learned Standing Counsel, learned Counsel for the petitioner shall also inform to the officers concerned by registered post as well as dasti and proof of dasti service shall be filed by next date of hearing If Chief Development Officer, Budaun does not receive, it shall be served to his Personal Assistant/Clerk/Peon and shall be taken proof of service. In case of refusal serious view shall be taken by this Court against the officials concerned.
list on 16th October, 2003 as part heard.”
4. In reference to the above order a detailed counter-affidavit has been filed and the original records have also been shown to the Court. From the counter-affidavit and records it reveals that when the result was declared on 23.3.1999 the petitioner’s name was shown at Serial Number One in the wasting list and in the merit list Serial Number 13 was kept open space or vacant for sortie candidate who did not deliberately come forward in the interview. No justification was however given for keeping Serial No. 13 as ‘vacant’. The selected candidates have already been given appointment by the State Government, however it appears, subsequently, the cadre of Gram Panchayat Adhikari’ was declared as dying cadre, therefore, according to the respondents fresh order cannot be issued in favour of the petitioner. This stand of the respondents is devoid of legal force. Taking that there was no defect in the selection process as well as in respect of the selected candidates, however prima facie there was a discrimination and error in preparation of select list dated 23.3.1999 where the Serial No. 13 was kept vacant/ open for the reasons best known to the respondents and since the petitioner was placed at Serial No. 1 in the waiting list without any justification in fact he was to be placed amongst the selected 35 candidates, therefore, this select list was required rescheduling and rectification. The petitioner was to be treated to have been duly selected alongwith the original selectees. Since there is no complaint about the selection and the selection is fair and the other selectees were given appointment, therefore, declaration of cadre of Gram Panchayat Adhikari as dying cadre at subsequent stage shall not debar the original position and status of the earlier selected persons including the petitioner as the petitioner is deemed to have been originally selected by virtue of reframing of the select list, therefore, the writ petition is liable to be allowed and mandamus is issued to the respondents to take a fresh decision treating the petitioner deemed to have been selected originally along with the other selected candidates and he is entitled to be given appointment according to the norms which was applicable to the original selected candidates and he is also entitled to the same seniority with original selectees and in the prevailing facts and circumstances, he shall be entitled for payment of salary from the date of joining the service.
5. In view of the above observations, the writ petition is allowed. No order as to cost.