Counsel for Petitioner(s) vs I.B.Singh, In Person, K. Bajpai, Manoj

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Vikas Singh, learned state counsel for opposite parties 1 to 4 and Mr. Virendra Mishra, learned counsel for opposite party No.6. No one has put in an appearance on behalf of opposite parties 5, 7, 8, 9, and 10.

2. Petition has been filed, as per amendment, seeking quashing of the appointment of opposite parties 5 to 10 on the post of Ward Boy in the hospital concerned. Further prayer for a direction to opposite parties to permit petitioner to appear before the interview/selection board and consideration of his case for appointment on the post of Ward Boy or Clerk has also been sought.

3. The present case is an unfortunate case of judicial delays which may have affected the relief which could have been granted earlier.

4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that petitioner had applied in the employment exchange where after his name was forwarded for consideration for recruitment on the post of Ward Boy. It is submitted that on 15th June 1996, an advertisement was published in Hindi daily newspaper inviting candidates for the post of Ward Boy in the district hospital, Sultanpur. It is submitted that in pursuance thereof, petitioner submitted an application for interview but no call letter was 2 WRIA No. 4338 of 1996 issued and subsequently petitioner gained knowledge that an interview was to be held on 5th July 1996. He accordingly appeared before the interview board but thereafter the opposite parties 5 to 10 were interviewed and appointment letters were issued for the post of Ward Boys despite the fact that the said persons never registered themselves with the employment exchange. It is submitted that certain other complaints were also made with regard to the alleged recruitment process and in pursuance thereof, an inquiry was conducted with report being submitted on 12th June 2000 which has been brought on record as part of Annexure No. 1 to the petition. He submits that a perusal of the aforesaid report clearly indicates the findings that the interview and entire process of recruitment was de hors the service regulations and also in view of the fact that chairman of the selection committee was related to one Hariprasad who was his son and subsequently selected on the said post. It is therefore submitted that once the inquiry conducted clearly indicated the entire selection process to be vitiated, it was incumbent upon the opposite parties to have cancelled the appointment of opposite parties 5 to

10. He has placed reliance on judgments rendered by the Supreme Court in the cases of Nagendra Chandra versus State of Jharkhand and others, (2008) 1 SCC 798; A.K. Kraipak and others versus Union of India and others, AIR 1970 Supreme Court 150 and Ashok Kumar Yadav and others versus State of Haryana and another, AIR 1987 Supreme Court 454 to buttress his submissions.

5. Learned state counsel as well as learned counsel for opposite party No.6 have refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner with submission that in view of the fact that 30 years have passed and petitioner is now admittedly aged about 55 years, no appointment or relief can be granted to him. Learned counsel for opposite party No. 6 submits that even as per the inquiry report, there is no allegation that the answering opposite parties were unqualified or ineligible for holding the post. It is submitted that admittedly advertisement was issued whereafter appointments were made.

6. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, it is evident that the entire case of petitioner hinges on the inquiry report dated 12th June 2000. A perusal 3 WRIA No. 4338 of 1996 of same indicates various discrepancies being noticed in the recruitment process pertaining not only to the post of Ward Boys but also seven posts of Sweepers who were also recruited in the same recruitment process. The inquiry report thereafter indicates the fact that ample advertisement of the recruitment process was not made and the reservation criteria was also not followed. The report also indicates that composition of the selection committee was not in accordance with rules. Certain other discrepancies have also been indicated including the fact that the posts were not advertised.

7. However, despite the aforesaid report, no consequential action appears to have been taken by the opposite parties regarding cancellation of appointment of opposite parties 5 to 10. A perusal of the aforesaid report indicates that ample advertisement with regard to such recruitment was not made. The said observation appears to be in conflict with averments made in paragraph 8 of the writ petition which clearly indicates advertisement having been issued in the Hindi daily newspaper on 15th June 1996. The inquiry report also thereafter admits that 73 persons had applied for six posts of Ward Boys and 7 posts of Sweeper. The discrepancies indicate that reservation policy was not followed and that the selection committee was not in accordance with rules.

8. However, the said report is silent with regard to fact whether opposite parties 5 to 10 were ineligible or unqualified for the posts for which they were recruited. In the judgments cited by learned counsel for the petitioner, it is settled law that any process of selection which is vitiated due to incorrect composition of the selection committee or for not following rules of reservation is liable to be quashed. However, in the present case, it is evident that the selection and appointment in pursuance thereof were carried out in the year 1996. The petitioner indicates his age in the memorandum of petition as 25 years in 1996. 30 years have passed. Petitioner's age admittedly now is 55 years and in view of service regulations, relief with regard to grant of appointment to petitioner cannot be followed through particularly since he did not even feature in the select list nor was admittedly ever interviewed.

9. As observed herein above, delay in adjudication of this writ petition has 4 WRIA No. 4338 of 1996 occasioned in a situation where ample relief cannot be granted to petitioner. It is also evident from the record and admitted that opposite parties 5 to 10 have now rendered 30 years of service on their posts on which selection was made in the year 1996.

10. In this unfortunate situation with regard to pendency of this writ petition, in the considered opinion of this court, no effective relief can be granted at this stage.

11. In view thereof, the petition stands dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs. September 17, 2025 prabhat (Manish Mathur,J.) PRABHAT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Vikas Singh, learned state counsel for opposite parties 1 to 4 and Mr. Virendra Mishra, learned counsel for opposite party No.6. No one has put in an appearance on behalf of opposite parties 5, 7, 8, 9, and 10.

2. Petition has been filed, as per amendment, seeking quashing of the appointment of opposite parties 5 to 10 on the post of Ward Boy in the hospital concerned. Further prayer for a direction to opposite parties to permit petitioner to appear before the interview/selection board and consideration of his case for appointment on the post of Ward Boy or Clerk has also been sought.

3. The present case is an unfortunate case of judicial delays which may have affected the relief which could have been granted earlier.

4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that petitioner had applied in the employment exchange where after his name was forwarded for consideration for recruitment on the post of Ward Boy. It is submitted that on 15th June 1996, an advertisement was published in Hindi daily newspaper inviting candidates for the post of Ward Boy in the district hospital, Sultanpur. It is submitted that in pursuance thereof, petitioner submitted an application for interview but no call letter was 2 WRIA No. 4338 of 1996 issued and subsequently petitioner gained knowledge that an interview was to be held on 5th July 1996. He accordingly appeared before the interview board but thereafter the opposite parties 5 to 10 were interviewed and appointment letters were issued for the post of Ward Boys despite the fact that the said persons never registered themselves with the employment exchange. It is submitted that certain other complaints were also made with regard to the alleged recruitment process and in pursuance thereof, an inquiry was conducted with report being submitted on 12th June 2000 which has been brought on record as part of Annexure No. 1 to the petition. He submits that a perusal of the aforesaid report clearly indicates the findings that the interview and entire process of recruitment was de hors the service regulations and also in view of the fact that chairman of the selection committee was related to one Hariprasad who was his son and subsequently selected on the said post. It is therefore submitted that once the inquiry conducted clearly indicated the entire selection process to be vitiated, it was incumbent upon the opposite parties to have cancelled the appointment of opposite parties 5 to

10. He has placed reliance on judgments rendered by the Supreme Court in the cases of Nagendra Chandra versus State of Jharkhand and others, (2008) 1 SCC 798; A.K. Kraipak and others versus Union of India and others, AIR 1970 Supreme Court 150 and Ashok Kumar Yadav and others versus State of Haryana and another, AIR 1987 Supreme Court 454 to buttress his submissions.

5. Learned state counsel as well as learned counsel for opposite party No.6 have refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner with submission that in view of the fact that 30 years have passed and petitioner is now admittedly aged about 55 years, no appointment or relief can be granted to him. Learned counsel for opposite party No. 6 submits that even as per the inquiry report, there is no allegation that the answering opposite parties were unqualified or ineligible for holding the post. It is submitted that admittedly advertisement was issued whereafter appointments were made.

6. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, it is evident that the entire case of petitioner hinges on the inquiry report dated 12th June 2000. A perusal 3 WRIA No. 4338 of 1996 of same indicates various discrepancies being noticed in the recruitment process pertaining not only to the post of Ward Boys but also seven posts of Sweepers who were also recruited in the same recruitment process. The inquiry report thereafter indicates the fact that ample advertisement of the recruitment process was not made and the reservation criteria was also not followed. The report also indicates that composition of the selection committee was not in accordance with rules. Certain other discrepancies have also been indicated including the fact that the posts were not advertised.

7. However, despite the aforesaid report, no consequential action appears to have been taken by the opposite parties regarding cancellation of appointment of opposite parties 5 to 10. A perusal of the aforesaid report indicates that ample advertisement with regard to such recruitment was not made. The said observation appears to be in conflict with averments made in paragraph 8 of the writ petition which clearly indicates advertisement having been issued in the Hindi daily newspaper on 15th June 1996. The inquiry report also thereafter admits that 73 persons had applied for six posts of Ward Boys and 7 posts of Sweeper. The discrepancies indicate that reservation policy was not followed and that the selection committee was not in accordance with rules.

8. However, the said report is silent with regard to fact whether opposite parties 5 to 10 were ineligible or unqualified for the posts for which they were recruited. In the judgments cited by learned counsel for the petitioner, it is settled law that any process of selection which is vitiated due to incorrect composition of the selection committee or for not following rules of reservation is liable to be quashed. However, in the present case, it is evident that the selection and appointment in pursuance thereof were carried out in the year 1996. The petitioner indicates his age in the memorandum of petition as 25 years in 1996. 30 years have passed. Petitioner's age admittedly now is 55 years and in view of service regulations, relief with regard to grant of appointment to petitioner cannot be followed through particularly since he did not even feature in the select list nor was admittedly ever interviewed.

9. As observed herein above, delay in adjudication of this writ petition has 4 WRIA No. 4338 of 1996 occasioned in a situation where ample relief cannot be granted to petitioner. It is also evident from the record and admitted that opposite parties 5 to 10 have now rendered 30 years of service on their posts on which selection was made in the year 1996.

10. In this unfortunate situation with regard to pendency of this writ petition, in the considered opinion of this court, no effective relief can be granted at this stage.

11. In view thereof, the petition stands dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs. September 17, 2025 prabhat (Manish Mathur,J.) PRABHAT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench