The court ruled that petitioners failed to demonstrate a common cause of action and selectively presented grievances, leading to the dismissal of their petition regarding the Teacher Grade III selection process.

Judgment :

1. The present petition is filed with the following prayers: -

"i) By an appropriate writ, order or direction the action of the respondents by which they have not considered meritorious OBC candidates who secured more marks than cut of marks of general category i.e. 1120.85 marks in general category be declared illegal and arbitrary by considering meritorious OBC category candidates who secured more marks than cut of marks of general category in general category only and the petitioners be considered against OBC category posts by rectifying result dated 30.04.2010 by following the judgment laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in R.K. Sabbarwal's case reported in 1995 (2) SCC 745 and Full Bench Decision of this Hon'ble Court in Shekh Mohammad's case reported in 200 (3) RLR-529 and the petitioners be declared selected for appointment on the post of Teacher Grade III in Sanskrit Wing in category 24 against the advertisement dated 02.09.2008 with all consequential benefits.

ii) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem think fit and proper may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioners."

2. The factual matrix of the instant matter is that an advertisement dated 02.09.2008 was issued by the respondents inviting applications for the post of Teacher Grade III in Sanskrit, wherein, 147 seats were reserved for OBC category, 558 seats were for general category, 62 seats were reserved for OBC(female), 163 seats were reserved for SC category, 159 seats were reserved for ST category, 32 seats were reserved for physically handicapped category. Pursuant to the said advertisement petitioners applied for the said post under OBC category and qualified the written examination conducted by the respondents.

3. The cutoff for OBC category is specified as 120.85 marks. However, ineligible candidates were included in the list of selected candidates. In this regard, petitions were filed by the concerned persons, resultant to which High Court held that candidates who have cleared the Varishtha Uppadhyaya examination are eligible to be appointed on the said post.

4. Subsequently, respondents modified the result which was declared on 03.10.2009 and accordingly revised list of selected candidates was issued by the respondents on 30.04.2010, however, in the said list of selected candidates, reservation provided to the OBC category candidates was not included.

5. The cut off for the OBC category as per the second revise list was declared as 118.79 marks and for the General category cut off was declared as 120.85 marks.

6. The cause of action in the instant matter arose when respondents deprived the petitioners from appointment on the post of Teacher Grade III in Sanskrit Wing, despite them being meritorious from the General category candidate.

7. In this background, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners despite securing more marks than the cut off specified for General category are not selected in the General category. In support of the said contention reliance is placed upon the judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in R. K. Sabharwal and Ors vs State Of Punjab And Ors., reported in 1995 SCC (2) 745.

8. On an erstwhile occasion, learned counsel for the petitioners were given directions to place documents on record qua the status of the selection process, fresh selection process, interim order, if any, operational. In this regard, it was submitted that once the petition is filed, lis in question always survive.

9. Lastly, reliance was placed upon Samita Shrivastava Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2024 INSC 378, Purushottam Vs. Chairman & Anr. reported in (1999) 6 SCC 49, and judgment passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Bharat Kumar Choudhary Vs. Union of India & Ors.: SBCWP No. 12444/2019.

10. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent had stoutly opposed the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, and submitted that as per Section 375(4) i