Court No.

- 6

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4118 of 2024

Petitioner :- Anant Agarwal

Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. / Prin. Secy Dep. Irrigation
And Water Resources And 4 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Gaurav Mehrotra,Harsh Vardhan Mehrotra,Ritika Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Raj Kumar Upadhyaya (R.K.Upadhyaya)

Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

1. Heard.
2. Under challenge is the order dated 22.03.2024, a copy of which is
Annexure-1 to the petition, whereby department of the petitioner has
been changed from Irrigation Department to Ground Water
Department. Also under challenge is the order dated 29.11.2023, a
copy of which is Annexure-2 to the petition, so far as it pertains to
change of department of the candidates.
The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 16.10.2023, a
copy of which is Annexure-3 to the petition, to the extent that it directs
for change of department.
3. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that selection
for the post of Assistant Engineer in different departments had taken
place. On account of non extension of the benefit of reservation to the
women candidates, who did not belong to the State of U.P. in terms of
the Government Order dated 09.01.2007, the said Government Order
had been challenged by various persons to the extent it ousted the
reservation to the women candidates, who were not the domicile of the
State of Uttar Pradesh.
4. The writ Court in a bunch of writ petitions leading being Writ A
No.11039 of 2018 in re : Vipin Kumar Maurya & 4 Ors vs State of
U.P. & Ors vide judgment and order dated 16.01.2019, a copy of
which is Annexure-10 to the writ petition, held the said Government
order to be ultra vires. It was further directed that the result be
declared after considering the women reservation. It was further
provided that those candidates who have been selected and appointed
pursuant to the advertisement in question, it would be unjust to allow
the respondents to eliminate their candidature and consequently it was
provided that none of the selected petitioners would be removed from
service on account of publication of revised select list and their
appointments would stand protected. It was also provided that the
petitioners shall be adjusted against available vacant positions which
have not been advertised so far or on which any right has not yet
accrued in favour of any person.
5. Subsequent thereto a Writ Petition No.30826 of 2019: In re Anjali
Shukla vs State of U.P. was filed before this Court wherein again after
considering the judgment of this Court in the case of Vipin Kumar
Maurya (supra) and the fact that the said judgment has not been
stayed in the Special Appeal filed by the Commission namely Special
Appeal (Defective) No.475 of 2019, the respondents were directed to
prepare a fresh select list with regard to selected women candidates as
per the directions contained in the judgment and order dated
16.01.2019.
6. In pursuance thereof, the Commission is said to have sent two
recommendations dated 16.10.2023 and 29.11.2023, copies of which
are Annexure-3 and 2 to the petition, for the adjustment of the
candidates on supernumerary posts who were to be ousted after
adjustment of the women candidates.
7. The said recommendations appear to have found favour with the
State Government by the Department of Appointment and Pernonnel
which has issued an order dated 31.10.2023, copy of which is
Annexure 8 to the petition, for the purpose of adjustment of the excess
candidates against supernumerary posts.
8. It is contended that various candidates have been adjusted against
the supernumerary posts in the departments in which they had been
appointed initially.
9. Now, by means of the order impugned, the Department of the
petitioner has been changed from Irrigation Department to Ground
Water Department.
10. Placing reliance on the recommendations of the Commission as
above as well as the order of the State Government dated 31.10.2023,
the contention is that once sufficient number of vacancies are
available in the Irrigation Department consequently, there cannot be
any occasion for the adjustment of the petitioner which has been
occasioned by means of the order impugned dated 22.03.2024.
11. Sri Dwijendra Mishra has filed an application for impleadment of
Ms Yashodhara Bisht by contending that any order passed in this
petition will adversely affect her as she has been adjusted in the Public
Works Department in view of reshuffling on account of the
reservation. A specific averment has also been made in para 54 of the
petition. Considering the same, Sri Dwijendra Mishra is permitted to
argue the matter as an intervenor.
12. Sri R.K. Upadhyaya learned counsel appearing for the
Commission as well the learned Standing counsel will seek
instructions that once recommendations of the Commission, as
indicated above, for adjustment of the excess candidates in the same
departments on supernumerary posts has found favour with the State
Government as emerges from order dated 31.10.2023 as to why the
petitioner has been allotted Ground Water Department from Irrigation
Department. Let the instructions be obtained within 2 weeks.
13. List thereafter as fresh.
14. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that in pursuance to the
order dated 22.03.2024 the petitioner has not been relieved from the
Irrigation Department.
15. Considering the aforesaid, it is provided that status quo as of
today, shall to be maintained with regard to the petitioner till the next
date of listing.

Order Date :- 24.5.2024

prateek