(Kurian Joseph and Sanjay Kishan Kaul, JJ.)
Sandeep Gupta _____________________________________ Petitioner;
v.
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Through its Registrar General ______________________________________________ Respondent(s).
Writ Petition(s) (Civil) No(s). 594/2016, decided on July 19, 2018
The Order of the court was delivered by
Order
1. I.A. No. 42562/2017 is allowed.
2. As per the advertisement dated 10.05.2016, applications were invited for filling up 72 posts in the Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service along with 12 carried over vacancies against the reserved categories.
3. The writ petitioner approached this Court challenging the vires of the Rules on the ground that as per the advertisement he had crossed the age of 45 years. Pursuant to the interim order dated 22-7-20161 the candidates were permitted to participate in the selection process.
4. We are informed that only 43 candidates were successful in the final round, which includes the petitioner-Sandeep Gupta and the intervenor-Pratima. As a matter of fact, on account of certain peculiar circumstances, the the examination of the U.P. Higher Judicial Service could not be held for the last more than three years, even though, the Rules do not contemplate so.
5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, intervenor and the respondent/High Court and considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we think it fit that this Court should invoke its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India for doing complete justice.
6. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of, directing the respondent(s)/High Court to clear the results of the petitioner/Sandeep Gupta and the intervenor/Pratima. Since they have otherwise come out successful, they shall be appointed without further delay.
7. We make it clear, in order to avoid any dispute regarding seniority, that the seniority would depend on their position in the select list.
8. Since, this order is passed in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, it shall not be treated as a precedent.
9. The Registry of this Court is directed to send back the results received from the High Court, in a sealed cover.
10. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
WRIT PETITION(S)(CIVIL) NO(S). 594/2016
Sandeep Gupta __________________________________ Petitioner
v.
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Through its Registrar General _________________________________________________ Respondent
(FOR ON IA 1/2016 FOR INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT ON IA 42562/2017 and IA No. 56839/2017-PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS)
WITH SLP(C) No. 22240/2016 (XI)
(FOR [PERMISSION TO FILE ANNEXURES] ON IA 1/2016
FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. ON IA 2/2016)
SLP(C) No. 4612/2018 (XIV)
SLP(C) No. 15704/2018 (XI)
Date : 19-07-2018 These matters were called on for hearing today.
(Before Kurian Joseph and Sanjay Kishan Kaul, JJ.)
For Petitioner(s) Mr. O.P. Bhadani, AOR
Mr. S.S. Pandey, Adv.
Mr. Bankey Bihari, AOR
Mr. Hasan Murtaza, AOR
Mr. D. Abhinav Rao, AOR
Mr. Vivek Singh, AOR
Mr. Swastik Dalai, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Sunny Choudhary, AOR
Mr. Gaurav Agrawal, AOR
Mr. Abhikalp Pratap Singh, Adv.
Mr. Annam Ventatesh, Adv.
Mr. Sudipto Sircar, Adv.
Mr. Rahul Mishra, Adv.
For Mr. Annam D.N. Rao, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
ORDER
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO(S). 594/2016
SLP(C) No. 22240/2016
11. We find that the petitioner has not even participated in the examination process.
12. Therefore, we are not inclined to entertain this special leave petition, which is, accordingly, dismissed.
13. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
SLP(C) No. 4612/2018
14. The petitioner approached this Court aggrieved by the interim order passed by the High Court.
15. Pursuant to our order, the petitioner was permitted to appear in the preliminary examination.
16. We are informed that the petitioner has appeared in the preliminary examination.
17. We make it clear that subject to the merit of the petitioner in the preliminary examination, the petitioner will be provisionally permitted to appear in the final examination as well, subject to the final outcome of the writ petition, which is pending before the High Court.
18. With the above observations and directions, the special leave petition is disposed of.
SLP(C) No. 15704/2018
19. List on 27.08.2018.
20. We direct the learned counsel appearing for the High Court of Allahabad to make available the result of the petitioner in a sealed cover.
———
1 Sandeep Gupta v. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, WP (C) No. 594 of 2016, order dated 22-7-2016 (SC)
