HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL (Court’s order whether the case is or not approved for reporting.) (Chapter VIII Rule 32 (2)(b) Description of the case. W.P. No… 1784 of 2001 (SS) Smt. Asha Rana vs. State of U.P. & others Approved for reporting. Not approved for reporting Date of decision 16.12.2003 Initial of Judge HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1784 of 2001 (SS) 1. Smt. Asha Rana w/o Vijay Singh Rana, Village Trilokan Nagar, Post Bhotia Paraw, Haldwani, District Nainital 2. Smt. Sarita Rani w/o Mahesh Singh, r/o Village Diya, Post Viriya Jhol, District Udham Singh Nagar 3. Gomati daughter of Indra Singh Rana R/o village Gauri Khera, Post Sitarganj, District Udham Singh Nagar 4. Shashi Rani d/o Ram Das r/o village Nayagaon, Post Ramraj, District Muzaffarnagar. 5. Lata Yadav d/o Bhurey Singh Yadav R/o Moh. Bhadipura (Power House) Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar 6. Yash Yadav d/o Veer Singh Yadac Prit Vihar Colony, Tari Foods road, Rudrapur, Udham Singh Nagar …… Petitioners Versus 1. State of U.P. 2. Commissioner, Rural Development U.P. Lucknow 3. District Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar 4. District Development Officer, Udham Singh Nagar 5. State of Uttaranchal. …….. Respondents Dated: 16.12.2003 Hon’ble Rajesh Tandon J: Heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. By the present writ petition the petitioner has prayed for the issue of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 24.6.1999 passed by the District Development Officer, Udham Singh Nagar, annexure-5 to the writ petition. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that a competitive examination for the recruitment of Gram Vikas Adhikari both Male and Female was held 13.12.1988. The petitioners qualified the written examination and they were called for interview. The interview was held on 27.2.1999 and result was notified on 8.3.1999. According to the notification in the selection list serial no. 1 to 28 are Gram Vikas Adhikari (Male) and the petitioner’s names were found place form serial no. 29 to 34 as Gram Vikas Adhikari (Female). The grievance of the petitioners is that the candidates selected as Gram Vikas Adhikari (Male) from Serial number 1. to 28 were given appointment letters and were also sent for training and after completing training they have been appointed on the post of Gram Vikas Adhikari but contrary to that the District Development Officer, Udham Singh Nagar vide order dated 24.6.1999 cancelled the selection of the petitioner for the post of Gram Vikash Adhikari (Female). Hence the writ petition. At the time of filing of the writ petition the Court has passed the following order on 27.7.1999. “Heard Sri AShok Khare learned counsel for the petitioners. The petitioners who are 6 in number were finally selected for training to the post of Gram Vikas Adhikarik (Mahila) against the six vacancies. Similar selection was held for the 250 post Gram Vikash Adhikari (Male). While the male candidates have been sent for training and appointed after their completion of training. The selection of the petitioner who are female Gram Vikash Adhikari, has been cancelled by the Department. On the direction of Commissioner Gramin Vika, U.P. Lucknow dated 10.2.99 Annexure -6 to the writ petition, the impugned order dated 24.6.99 (Annexure 5) has been passed by the District Development Officer, Udham Singh Nagar. The reason assigned for the passing of impugned orders is that appropriate sanction was not received from the Karmik Department of the Sachivalaya. Sri Khare pointed out that there was no justifiable reason to distinguish the cases of the petitioners and the impugned orders passed by the departmental authorities are arbitrary and illegal. The matter requires scrutiny. Let a counter affidavit be filed within 6 weeks. List thereafter. In the meantime, the operation of the impugned orders dated 24.6.99 (Annesure-5), 10.2.99 and 27.5.99 (Annexure 6 & 7) shall remain stayed and if the petitioners have been actually selected as Gram Vikash Adhikari (Female) they shall be allowed to take part in the training.” Pursuant to the interim order passed by the Court the selection of the petitioners on the posts of Gram Vikash Adhikari (Female) have already been given effect to. The writ petition is, therefore, decided in terms of the interim order dated 27.7.1999. With the aforesaid observations the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. (Rajesh Tandon, J.) 16.12.2003 *Dhyani IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL Civil Writ Petition No. 1784 of 2001 (S/S) Smt. Asha Rana and others ……………. Petitioners Versus State of U.P. (now Uttaranchal) and others ………….. Respondents Mr. Ramji Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners. Mr. Nand Prasad, learned Counsel for the State. Hon. Rajesh Tandon, J. This review application has been filed by the applicant / petitioner No. 1. Heard, Mr. Ramji Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Nand Prasad, learned Standing Counsel for the State. The Courts order dated 27.07.1999 is very much clear as the petitioners were selected as Gram Vikas Adhikari (Mahila) and they were allowed to take part in the training in view of the aforesaid interim order. No further order is required. Therefore, the respondents are directed to consider the appointment of the petitioner for the post of Gram Vikas Adhikari (Mahila) on the basis of office order dated 19th March 1999 (Annexure- 3) to the following effect: dk;kZy; ftyk fodkl vf/kdkjh m/keflag uxjA i=kad 3137@1&LFkk0@lewg&x@98&99 fnukad 8 ekpZ 1999 dk;kZy; vkns k lfpo dkfeZd vquHkkx&2 m0iz0 “kklu ds “kklukns”k 20@1&91 Vhlh&97 fnukad 9&6&98 }kjk fuxZr fu;ekoyh ds v/khu ¼m0iz0 yksd lsok vk;ksx ds {ks= ls ckgj½ lewg x& ds inksa dh lh/kh HkrhZ ds vUrxZr xzke fodkl vf/kdkjh] iq:’k@efgyk dh lh/kh HkrhZ foKfIr i=kad 1357 fnukad 7&8&98 }kjk izdkf”kr dj izkIr vkosnu i=ksa ds vk/kkj ij “kkjhfjd ijh{kk esa mRrh.kZ vH;fFkZ;ksa dh fyf[kr ijh{kk esa lfEefyr fd;k x;kA fyf[kr ijh{kk ijh{kk vgZdkjh ;ksX;rk rFkk lk{kkRdkj ijh{kk vadksa ds ;ksX; ls ojh;rk ds v/kkj ij fuEufyf[kr vH;kfFkZ;ksa dks p;fur fd;k tkrk gSA dzeka vH;FkhZ dk uke ,oa irk Tkkfr vuqdzekad in 1 Jherh vk”kk jk.kk] iRuh fot; flag jk.kk] xzke f=yksd uxj] nksugfj;k] iks0 HkksfV;k iMko] gY}kuh] uSuhrky v0t0tk0 000393 xzkfo0v0 ¼e½ 2 Jherh lfjrk jkuh] iRuh egs”k flag] Xke fn;k] iks0 fcfj;k e>ksyk] m/keflag uxj v0t0tk0 000306 xzkfo0v0 ¼e½ 3 dq0 xkserh iq=h bUnz flag jk.kk] xzke xkSjh [ksjk] iks0 flrkjxat] m/keflag uxj v0t0tk0 000287 xzkfo0v0 ¼e½ 4 Dq “kf”k jkuh iq=h jkenkl] xzke u;k Xkao iks0 jkejkt] vktxe<+ v0tk0 000239 xzkfo0v0 ¼e½ 5 dq0 yrk ;kno iq=h Hkwjs flag ;kno ekS0 HknbZiqjk ¼ikoj gkml½ :nziqj] m/keflag uxj v0fi0o0 000264 xzkfo0v0 ¼e½ 6 dq0 ;”k ;kno iq=h ohj flag ;kno] izhr fogkj dksykuh] rjkbZ QwMl jksM] :nziqj m/keflag uxj v0fi0o0 000320 xzkfo0v0 ¼e½ p;u fd;s x;s vH;fFkZ;ksa dks ekSfyd :Ik ls fu;qDr fd;s tkus ij vius [kpsZ ij ljdkj }kjk le; le; ij ;FkkfofufnZ’V LFkku ij nks o’kZ dk izf”k{k.k izkIr djuk gksxkA bl vof/k esa ljdkj }kjk le; le; ij vo/kkfjr izfrekg o`fRrdk nh tk;sxhA izf”k{k.k esa tkus ls iwoZ vH;FkhZ ,d ca/kd i= fuLikfnr djsxsa ftlls os jkT; ljdkj ds v/khu rhu o’kZ rd xzke fodkl vf/kdkjh ds :Ik esa lsok djus ds fy, opuo) gksxsaA izf”k{k.k esa tkus dh lwpuk i`Fkd jkT; ljdkj ls izkIr gksus ij lwfpr dh tk,xhA izf”k{k.k esa tkus ls iwoZ eq[;kfpfdRlkf/kdkjh ls LoLF;rk izek.k i= izLrqr djuk vfuok;Z gksxkA g0@& vLi’V ¼czg~e flag½ ftyk fodkl vf/kdkjh Å /keflag uxj Ik=kad 3137 @LFkk0@lewg&x@98&99 fnukad 8 ekpZ 1999 izfrfyfi % fuEufyf[kr dks lwpukFkZ ,oa vko”;d dk;Zokgh gsrq izsf’krA 1 mijksDr 34 lacfU/kr p;fur vH;FkhZA 2 ftyk lsok;kstu vf/kdkjh] Å /keflag uxjA 3 eq[; fodkl vf/kdkjh] Å /keflag uxjA 4 la;qDr fodkl vk;qDr] dqeka;q e.My] uSuhrkyA 5 ftykf/kdkjh Å /keflag uxjA 6 vk;qDr] xzkE; fodkl ¼LFkkiuk vuqHkkx&2½ m0 iz0 y[kuÅ dks bl vuqjks/k ds lkFk izsf’kr gS fd mijksDr vH;fFkZ;ksa dks izf”k{k.k lacU/kh vkns”k @funsZ”k bl dk;kZy; dks ;Fkk”kh?kZ Hkstus dh d`ik djsaA g0@& vLi’V 8@3@99 ftyk fodkl vf/kdkjh Å /keflag uxj Accordingly direction is given to the respondents that on filing the representation by the petitioners for consideration along with the order of this Court the respondents shall consider the same in terms of the order dated 27.7.1999 within a period of six weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order. Review petition is disposed of, accordingly. (Rajesh Tandon, J.) Dt. 27.04.2004 HN