High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Santosh Kumar Srivastava v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 19306 of 1998  RD-AH 15298 (4 September 2006)
Court No. 26
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 19306 of 1998
Santosh Kumar Srivastava
State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.,
Hon'ble Dilip Gupta, J.
The Public Service Commission, U.P. Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as the ''Commission') issued an advertisement for the post of Headmaster in Sub-ordinate Educational Service (Gazetted) for Government High Schools and Training Schools, U.P. on 27th August, 1982. The petitioner submitted an application form and he was asked to appear for interview on 8th February, 1993. The petitioner appeared before the Interview Board on 26th February, 1994. A list of 94 selected candidates was declared by the Commission but the name of the petitioner was not included in the said list. The petitioner felt aggrieved by the aforesaid list of the selected candidates as a result of which he filed repeated representations, including the representation dated 25th February, 1998, but as these representations were not decided, he filed a writ petition in this Court which was disposed of by means of the judgment and order dated 16th April, 1998 with a direction to the Commission to examine the representation and dispose it of within a period of 15 days. The Commission then considered the representation dated 25th February, 1998 and rejected it by an order dated 14th May, 1998. It is this order which has been impugned in the present petition and a further direction has been sought for quashing the recommendation/selection held on 26th February, 1994 and to recommend the name of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Headmaster.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Commission has rejected the representation in an arbitrary manner without considering the objections raised by the petitioner.
I am unable to accept this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. A perusal of the impugned order dated 14th May, 1998 shows that the petitioner was called for interview before the Interview Board which, however, did not recommend his name. The petitioner in his representation dated 25th February, 1998 had raised the grievance about the candidate at Serial No. 11 who according to the petitioner obtained only 241 marks. It has been stated in the impugned order that the petitioner had wrongly stated this fact as the candidate at Serial No. 11 had obtained 251 marks. It has also been stated that the petitioner has given false information about the list of selected candidates and that the candidates who had been selected had obtained higher marks then the petitioner. A perusal of the representation dated 25th May, 1998 and the order impugned dated 14th May, 1998 clearly shows that all the issues raised by the petitioner in the said representation had been decided against him. Learned counsel for the petitioner is, therefore, not correct in submitting that some issues have not been decided.
This apart, the selections were made in the year 1994 while the petition was filed in the year 1998 and the petitioner has not impleaded any of the selected candidates as party respondents in the present petition. The selected candidates were necessary parties and in their absence no relief can be granted to the petitioner.
There is, therefore, no merit in this petition. It is, accordingly, dismissed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.