9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (4) TMI 932X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court whereby and whereunder an order dated 1.12.2004 passed by a learned Single Judge of the said Court was modified as also the order dated 3.1.2006 passed by a learned Single Judge of the said High Court dismissing the review application filed by the appellant herein. 3. The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute. An advertisement was issued by the Chief General Manager, U.P. (W), Telecom Circle, Dehradun for recruitment to the post of Telecom Technical Assistants (General Central Services) Group `C' non-gazetted, non-ministerial in the office of Telecom District Manager, Pilibhit. In the said advertisement, it was specified that there exists five vacancies for the post of General Catego ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 16.07.74 OC 611 Gen. 7 14-058 Kamlesh Kumar Maurya 02.07.80 OBC 608 Gen. 8 14-112 Prem Pal 02.01.79 OBC 600 OBC 9 14-085 Abhisek Shukla 01.08.79 OC 596 Gen. 10 14-151 Jitendra Pal Gangwar 21.04.79 OBC 589 SC It is furth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6. By reason of a judgment and order dated 1.12.2004, a learned Single Judge of the High Court noticed that most of the averments made in the writ petition had not been traversed and, thus, the same would be deemed to have been admitted. The writ petition was, therefore, allowed, directing : In the result, the writ petition stands allowed. The order dated 26.9.2003/24.11.2003 passed on the representation of the petitioner, is quashed. The petitioners would be entitled to be given appointment on the post of Telecom Technical Assistants under Telecom District Manager, Pilibhit in pursuance to the select list dated 05.08.2002. There will be no order as to cost. 7. An intra court appeal was preferred thereagainst and by reason of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 8. As indicated hereinbefore, by an order dated 3.1.2006, the review application filed by the appellants has been dismissed. 9. Mr. K.C. Kaushik, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, would contend : i) There being no provision in the statutory rules for preparing a select list with waitlist candidates, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained. ii) The life of the panel being one year, it was impermissible for the High Court to direct the appellant to consider the candidatures of the appellants. 10. Mr. Navin Chawla, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, on the other hand, would support the impugned judgment. 11. In their Writ Petition, the respondents had categorically stated that on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... department. It is, therefore, difficult to conceive that the concerned officers of the department could not place the factual and legal position before the Court as has been contended before us. 14. Mr. Kaushik furthermore contended that one of the vacancies had been earmarked for a handicapped candidate and, thus, it is not possible to comply with the order of the High Court. Such a decision must have been taken only in the year 2003. Such appointment of a handicapped person, indisputably, is de' hors the advertisement. 15. We, therefore, do not find any error in the impugned judgments. We are, however, not oblivious of the fact that ordinarily the life of such a panel is one year as has been observed by this Court in Girdhar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
