Procedural technicalities should take a back seat in public interest litigation, and principles of natural justice should be followed in considering representations.

JUDGMENT :

The petitioner has prayed for the following relief/s :

(i) For quashing or declaring the Clause (iii) of the Notice-dated 21.04.2016 published in ‘Hindustan’ Hindi Daily read with Clause 6(Ka)(i) of the Govt. Memo No.2530 dated 04.10.2017 as ultravirous to the Constitution of India and also nonest in Eye of Law.

(ii) The respondents simultaneously may kindly be directed to replace the above said incorporation as just, fair, rational and reasonable stipulation for providing the constitutional protection under Article 14, 16 and 21 be made available to petitioners and other Non-formal Education Instructors-cum-Special Education Instructors, who are/were validly appointed, bonafidely worked and entitle for job/absorption within four corners of law coupled with illegibility and experience criteria, which they having admittedly.

(iii) For directing the respondent to consider the petitioners candidature/cause in view of well settled preposition of law as stated hereunder :-

(a) “Justice must not only be done, but it must also be seen to be done”, since reported in (1924) 1 KB 256 (i.e. Rex. Vs. Sussex Justices case) and other cases.

(b) “A reasonless order cannot be termed as an order, more so could not come under the definition of law decided and as such not at all have any binding effect”, since reported in (2010) 9 SCC 496 (M/s Kranti Asso. Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Masood Ahmad Khan & Ors.), AIR 2004 SSC 2950 (Narcotics Control Bureau case) etc.

(c) “Hot and Cold cannot be allowed to blow simultaneously” since reported in AIR 2006 SCC online Cal. 158, (2009) 8 SCC 266, (2009) 9 SCC 304, (2011) 10 SCC 420, (2020) 6 SCC 387 etc.

(d) “Whenever a cutoff date fixed to categorized one set of employees for favorable consideration over others the twin test of valid classification must necessarily be satisfied” since reported in (2013) 2 SCC 772 (794), K.T. Retire Official Association Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.

(e) “The judgment must be read in totality” as has been held in Hon’ble Apex Courts decision since reported in AIR 1993 SC 43 (Commissioner Income Tax Vs. Sun Engineering) etc. and as such the Hon’ble Apex Court decision/order Supra dated 26.02.2016 ought to have been looked into in its totality and not in isolation while confining over the later part of order only.

(f) The doctrine towards ‘Judicial decorum and binding nature’ of an order had also could not be looked into by the Hon’ble Apex Court while passing the order above said dated 26.02.2016 and 02.12.2021 as the principle decided in Ashwini Kumar & Ors case Supra has been three Hon’ble Judges of the Hon’ble Apex Court and even though the said decision was neither diluted nor challenge, having still holding its field ought to have been honoured/followed by the Division Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court under the doctrine of judicial decorum and binding nature of residence or the same ought to have been referred to the lager Bench, in the case of difference of opinion etc.

(g) ‘Right to livelihood is an integral part of right of life’ since Shershiri Vs. The State of Karnataka), (2014) 14 SCC 127 (Dhiraj Singh Vs. State of Haryana), 2011 (1) SCC 53 (V.N. Shrikhande(Dr.) Vs. Amla Sera Fernandes).

(h) “State action to be reasonable and in public interest “Since reported in 2005 ALD 194(Dr.V.V. Sai Naresh and another Vs. Union of India & Ors.

(iv) The answering respondents also may kindly be directed to not at all be prejudice with any decision or order which has no sanction of law and not having any binding effect more so going to cause miscarriage of justice on the face of it.

(v) The answering respondent alternatively may kindly be directed to engage the petitioners either on regular basis or on contractual basis while extending preferential right/weightage in their favour, in view of the latest development published in Hindi Daily “Dainik Jagran” on 19.12.2021.

3. After the matter was heard for some time, finding the Bench not to be agreeable with the submissions made across