Abhinava Upadhya, J.:— Heard Sri Seemant Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ajeet Singh, learned Addl. Advocate General as well as Sri Piyush Shukla, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel.
2. All the writ petitions involve common question of law, hence they are decided by common order.
3. Learned counsel for both the parties do not dispute that the controversy involved in the present batch of writ petitions are covered by the judgment of this Court in the case of Ashish Kumar Pandey v. State of U.P., 2016 (4) AWC 4014 which judgment was challenged by the State before the Division Bench by filing special appeal defective no. 338 of 2016- State of U.P. v. Ashish Kumar Pandey reported in 2016 (5) AWC 4592 which special appeal was although allowed partly as regards strictures passed against Advocate General and other State functionaries but it was directed that the other part of the order passed by learned Single Judge be complied with forthwith.
4. It is submitted that State did not file Special Leave to Appeal against the judgment of the special appeal but some of the selected candidates have moved Supreme Court by special leave to appeal in which no interim order has been granted. That being the case, the petitioners' case as informed by learned counsel for the parties is fully covered by the aforesaid judgment and their claim shall be decided in terms of the aforesaid judgment. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.