Hon’ble Amitava Lala, J.—By the earlier order passed by Division Bench of this Court, all the aforesaid writ petitions were connected, and have been heard analogously for the purpose of disposal by a common judgement and order having binding effect upon all of them. The Writ Petition No. 54845 of 2005, will be considered as leading case, under which the writ petitioner wanted an appropriate order quashing the select list dated 7th/8th May, 2005, in so far as it selects Dr. P.C. Saxena, as Principal of Moti Lal Nehru Medical College, Allahabad (for short the College) alongwith other incidental prayers.

2. Fact remains that advertisement No. 3/2003/04 was issued for the purpose of filling up posts of Principals of State Medical Colleges. However, by a corrigendum dated 8th May, 2005 the maximum age limit of the candidates was enhanced. Originally, 6 posts were declared vacant for the purpose of filling up, out of which 3 were reserved for S.C. & S.T. candidates. However, later on such total posts were reduced to 4 in number. There is no dispute with regard to the posts reserved for S.C. & S.T. category. The dispute is with regard to the selection of general category candidate i.e. Dr. P.C. Saxena, as Principal of the College. An incidental dispute has been raised by Dr. Manisha Dwivedi by saying that although initially it was said that there would be reservation for women but subsequently the same had been withdrawn. According to Sri Rakesh Pandey, learned Counsel appearing for Dr. Dwivedi, the reservation for women is horizontal not vertical, therefore, such reservation should be made separately within the general candidates. However, we have come to know that still there is scope of 20% reservation for women candidates. Since the number of posts was reduced, 20% reservation for women was not available. In any event, Dr. Manisha Dwivedi and Dr. U.S. Sinha, both the petitioners herein, participated in the selection and after becoming unsuccessful, raised dispute with regard to the selection of Dr. P.C. Saxena by making these writ petitions.

3. So far as the other petitioner i.e. Dr. Harish Kumar Bist is concerned, his attack is not with regard to the selection but with regard to the seniority of candidates. According to Mr. M.K. Gupta, learned Counsel appearing for Dr. Bist, by a Government Order dated 2nd April, 1998, 6 medical Colleges were taken in a society, under the Societies Registration Act, 1856 and were accordingly registered. Under the compelling circumstances, Lecturers, Associate Professors, Readers therein, were directed to join in such posts under the society. Eventually, whosoever accepted such post under the society, irrespective of the seniority, was given the rank of the Professor but in fact, they are junior to Dr. Bist. The society was ultimately declared as defunct, therefore, the seniority will be counted as it was originally and not by virtue of placement of his juniors on the higher posts under the society, vide aforesaid Government Order, at the time of formation of the society.

4. Before entering into further controversy in respect of selection process herein, we are of the view that the cases of Dr. Bist and Dr. Dwivedi will be clarified at first. According to us, Dr. Bist could have challenged the seniority position, much before the commencement of the selection process, when the society was very well in existence i.e. in between 2nd April, 1998 and 14th September, 1998. When a Government Order has been issued on 23rd February, 2005 regarding the experience of the candidates, in the society or not in the society, only then he has come forward and invoked the writ jurisdiction of the Court for cancellation of such notification, on 8th December, 2005 long after the selection and publication of the select list on 7th/8th May, 2005. Therefore, his writ petition cannot be entertainable on account of laches, unless of course, the writ petition of Dr. Sinha succeeds in quashing the select list. Henc