By the Court.—This Review Petition No. 59691 of 2014 filed in Special Appeal No. 442 of 2012 and the connected special appeals arise out of common judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 8th February, 2012 passed in a bunch of writ petitions leading being Writ-A No. 61659 of 2010 (Ranjeet Kumar Singh and others v. State of U.P. and others). All the appeals have been clubbed together. The review petition filed in Special Appeal No. 442 of 2012 had been nominated to this Bench for hearing under the order of the Hon’ble The Chief Justice dated 24th April, 2014.

2. Facts in short relevant for deciding the present matter are as follows:

U.P. Secondary Education Selection Board (hereinafter referred to as the “Board”) published an advertisement No. 01 of 2009 on 15th January, 2009 inviting applications for the post of Trained Graduate Teachers in the subject of Social Science. Petitioners, before the Writ Court, are stated to have applied in response thereto and to have participated in the process of selections. Selections were held on the basis of multiple choice questions to be answered on OMR sheets. The result of written examination was declared on 18th June, 2010. Interview of short-listed candidates took place between 16th to 26th July, 2010. Final result was declared on 14th September, 2010 based on total of marks received by the candidates in written examination and interview.

3. Petitioners approached the Writ Court challenging the correctness of the key answers in respect of six questions of History subject paper and one question of Civics subject paper. It was the case of the petitioners that if the wrong answers of these seven questions are corrected and marks are awarded for correct answers, they would be successful in the selections. It was also the case of the petitioners that key-answers feeded in respect of aforesaid seven questions were incorrect, this resulted in a wrong select list being prepared.

4. The learned Single Judge noticed the seven questions which according to the petitioners had been accorded wrong key-answers. The learned Single Judge proceeded to himself examine the correctness of the key-answers to the aforesaid seven questions and ultimately disposed of the bunch of the writ petition vide judgment and order dated 8th February, 2012 by issuing six directions as contained in paragraph-59 of the judgment. The directions so issued read as follows:

“(i) Petitioners’ answer-sheets in respect to above seven questions shall be examined in the manner as adjudicated above (summarised in para 41) and their marks in written test would be determined accordingly.

(ii) In case, it is found that petitioners or any one or more of them have secured total marks more than last selected and appointed person, they shall be given appointment. (iii) The above appointments will be made against the advertised vacancies on the post of Trained Graduate Teachers. The persons already appointed in service shall not be made to suffer in any manner, except to the extent one or more of the petitioners on account of increase in his total marks is required to be appointed and in that case, persons last in merit would have to suffer and their appointments, if already made, shall be terminated. I am constrained to give this direction for the reason that vacancies of Teachers advertised for selection are pursuant to requisitions received from the individual secondary institutions and, therefore, only those vacancies which were requisitioned and advertised in the above selection can be made to be governed by this judgment and the subsequent and other vacancies not included in the above selection cannot be taken into consideration to give benefit to any of petitioners by protecting the appointments already made.

(iv) The appointment, if any, made pursuant to this order of petitioners, for the purpose of actual payment of salary shall take effect from the date of appointment but for the purpose of pay fixation, senior