Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:20032 Court No. - 28 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1564 of 2005 Petitioner :- Vinay Kumar Pandey And 14 Ors Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thu Secretary Ministry Of Health And 3 Ors Counsel for Petitioner :- Dr L P Mishra,H S Tewari Counsel for Respondent :- C S C Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh, J. 1. The present writ petition has been filed seeking following reliefs:- "I. Issue a Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of the mandamus commanding to opposite parties to allow the petitioners to perform their duties in term of their appointment letters dated 9.2.2005 and also allow to earn their salary and allowances months to months. II. Issue a Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the Government Order dated 9.2.2005 contained in Annexure No.7 of this writ petition after declaring the same ultra vires.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 13.01.2005 an advertisement was issued under the direction of the Managing Director, Medical and Health, U.P., Lucknow for filling up Class-IV posts. In pursuance thereof, the petitions applied for the post of Class-IV at District Hospital, Sultanpur. Since there is no provision for conducting written examination, date for interview was scheduled on 05.02.2005. The petitioners appeared in interview and thereafter the list of successful candidates was pasted on the notice board on 07.02.2005 containing the names of the petitioners. The select list was also published in daily newspaper “Swatantra Bharat” on 08.02.2005 and the Chief Medical Officer, Sultanpur informed that appointment letters to the selected candidates would be send separately by Registered Post. On 09.02.2005 appointment letters were issued to the selected candidates indicating their place and post. When the selected candidates reported for their joining, but to their utter surprise, the authorities were orally informed them that in pursuance of the order dated 09.02.2005 issued by the Director (Administration), Medical and Health, the selection has been cancelled, which was issued in the light of the Government Order dated 09.02.2005. In the aforesaid Government Order, it is said that some complaints have been received in regard to the selection process, therefore, the same has been cancelled. 3. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that after following due procedure of selection, the petitioners were issued appointment letters on 09.02.2005, but the State Government issued a Government Order dated 09.02.2005 itself and a decision was taken to cancel the appointment on the basis that some complaints were received. He further submits that there is no specific allegation as to what complaints were made and only on undisclosed complaint, the aforesaid Government Order was issued cancelling the appointments. Learned counsel also submits that once the selection has been made after following the due procedure and the appointment letters were issued, it was not incumbent upon the State Government to issue such Government Order cancelling the appointments on the basis that some complaints were made against the said selection. He also submits that in terms of the interim order passed by this Court, the petitioners were allowed to work, which was admitted in Paragraph-3M of the counter affidavit filed on 31.01.2020. Learned counsel also submits that the appointing authority in the present case is the Chief Medical Officer, who exercised his statutory power while issuing appointment letters. There is no illegality or infirmity in the selection procedure, therefore, the appointments cannot be cancelled abruptly in such a manner. It is further submitted that no opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioners prior to cancellation of appointments. 4. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel has submitted that on the basis of some complaints, the State Government issued the Government Order dated 09.02.2005 cancelling the appointments, therefore, there is no need to interfere in the impugned orders. 5. Heard Sri H.S. Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Uttam Kumar Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel and perused the record. 6. After going through the record, what transpires is that the appointment letters were issued after completing the due procedure of law. Whatever complaint if was before the State Government, that could have been subjected to for enquiry, but issuing the Government Order for cancelling the appointment letters on the date when the petitioners were selected, is bad in law and is not sustainable. The other relevant factor that has to be considered, is that till date nothing has come on record as to what was the complaint or what was the seriousness in the matter where the State Government came to the conclusion that appointments were based on some extraneous consideration. The petitioners are working on Class- IV post since twenty years in terms of the interim order passed by this Court. Therefore, the impugned Government Order and the consequent orders issued cannot be sustained in law and are liable to be quashed. 7. Writ petition is accordingly allowed and a Writ in the nature of Certiorari is issued quashing the impugned Government Order dated 09.02.2005 contained as Annexure No.7 to the writ petition. Consequences will follow. . (Brij Raj Singh, J.) Order Date :- 9.4.2025 Rao/- Digitally signed by :- CHEBROLU SRINIVASA RAO High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench