HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 5429 of 2018 Court No. - 34 HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J. 1. Heard Shri Manu Mishra, learned counsel for the writ petitioner and Shri S.K. Pal, learned Standing Counsel for the State. 2. Since, the counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged between the parties and a request has been made by the learned counsel for the parties for final disposal, thus, with the consent of the parties, the writ petition is being decided at the fresh stage. 3. The case of the writ petitioner is that the writ petitioner belongs to SC category and his date of birth is 07.08.1984 and an advertisement was published in the month of June, 2015, for the recruitment of Lekhpal (Lekhpal Recruitment Examination, 2015) by the Department of Revenue by the U.P. State Government. The writ petitioner being fully qualified and eligible in all respects applied on 15.07.2015. The writ petitioner was allotted Roll NO. 693227730295 and the Application number was 103417010. The writ petitioner appeared in the examination which was to be conducted on 13.09.2015 and pursuant to the proceedings sought to be initiated under the R.T.I. Act, 2005, it was disclosed on 29.05.2017 that the writ petitioner obtained 51.32 marks out of 80 marks. According to the writ petitioner, on further recourse under the R.T.I. Act, 2005, he was informed that a list of candidates being 155 was issued. The allegation of the writ petitioner is that since the writ petitioner was not called for the interview so the writ petitioner has preferred the present petitioner seeking relief to the extent that a mandamus be directed to be Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Manu Mishra, Mohit Kumar Singh, Sujata Choudhary Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Raj Kumar .....Petitioner(s) State of U.P. .....Respondent(s) issued to the respondents for consideration of the claim of the writ petitioner for appointment on the post of Lekhpal. 4. This Court entertained the writ petition pursuant whereto a short counter affidavit and counter affidavit has been filed. In the counter affidavit, it has been contended that under the direction of the State Government TCS Company, Lucknow, had prepared the list. This Court on 17.03.2025 allowed the impleadment application impleading the Tata Consultancy Services as fifth respondent and notices were issued on 17.03.2025 and there is an office report dated 26.04.2025 which reads as under: "Service Report In compliance of Hon'ble Court's order dt. 17/3/25, service report is that unserved notice from res. no. 5 is received with postal remark-"दजर् पते पर लेने से इंकार अतः ्ऺेषक को वापस" 5. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner has submitted that the candidature of the writ petitioner has been wrongly excluded from consideration, particularly, in view of the fact that the writ petitioner is fully eligible and qualified in all respects and further the candidate for illustration, Ashutosh Kumar, bearing Serial No. 107, Roll No. 693229770021 had obtained 44.8 marks that is lower than the writ petitioner who obtained 51.32 marks out of 80 and he had been called for interview and accorded benefits and the claim of the writ petitioner has been sidetracked. He further submits that the said illustration is just a drop in the ocean as there are other candidates also, who have been given leverage over the writ petitioner, who were not so deserving as the writ petitioner is. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner submits that the claim of the writ petitioner is liable to be decided by the competent authority. 6. Shri S.K. Pal, learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, submits that the selection is of the year 2015 and barring the said allegations, there is nothing on record to substantiate the same, however, he submits that looking into the overall facts, according to him, a direction be issued to the Chairman, U.P. Board of Revenue, Lucknow, to consider the grievance of the writ petitioner. To such a submission, learned counsel for WRIA No. 5429 of 2018 2 the writ petitioner has no objection. 7. Considering the submissions so made across the Bar, looking into the allegations so sought to be made by the writ petitioner that the incumbents, who are lower in merit had been called for interview and had been accommodated and further bearing in mind the fact that the none of the selected candidates have been impleaded and selection is of the year 2015 and we are in the year 2025, this writ petition stands disposed of directing the writ petitioner to prefer a comprehensive representation alongwith a self attested copy of the writ petition and certified copy of this order passed today before the Chairman, U.P. Board of Revenue, Lucknow by 28.10.2025 and on the said motion, the Chairman, U.P. Board of Revenue shall proceed to decide the entitlement of the writ petitioner while examining the allegations so sought to be leveled including the vacancies, if any, suitability and merit of the petitioner. The said exercise is to be undertaken and given logical ends within three months. October 9, 2025 A. V. Singh WRIA No. 5429 of 2018 3 (Vikas Budhwar,J.) Digitally signed by :- AJAY VIKRAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad