RAM NARESH SINGH vs STATE OF U. P. - 2017 Supreme(All) 2335

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2017 Supreme(All) 2335

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
BEFORE : MRS. SANGEETA CHANDRA, J.
RAM NARESH SINGH AND OTHERS ....Petitioners
Versus
STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS ....Respondents
(Civil Misc. Writ Petition Nos. 28607, 60869, 60903, 57207, 30743 and 34154 of 2014, decided on 14th December, 2017)

Advocates Appeared:
Ashok Khare, Siddharth Khare, Prabhakar Dubey, S. Kumar, Sudhir Kumar Rai, Om Narayan Dwivedi, V.K. Singh and D.K. Singh for the Petitioners; C.S.C., Abhishake Mishra, Ashwani Kumar Yadav, B.K. Yadav, K.C. Shukla, Shiv Nath Singh, Surya Bhan Singh-I, Vivek Mishra, Raj Nath Maurya, Mahavir Verma, J.H. Khan, Neeraj Singh and Gulrez Khan for the Respondents.
[For Full Judgment—See—2018(1) ESC 592 (All)]

Headnote:U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board Rules, 1998 – Rules 13(5), 11(4), 11(3) and 12 – Select list – Quashing of – L.T. Grade Teacher – Submission of petitioners that impugned revised Select List had been issued beyond jurisdiction of Selection Board and after declaration of final Select List, the Board had become functus officio – And that said Select List had also been acted upon by grant of appointment to selected candidates i.e. petitioners and it was no longer open for Board to make alterations in Select List – Deserving candidates, who ought to have been selected, could not be selected due to error in conducting of examination and declaration of result – And they have a right to be considered for appointment – Those candidates, who did not practise any misrepresentation and were working for almost three years on the posts in question from which they were sought to be ousted because of orders impugned passed by High Court, also needed to be adjusted – Persons already appointed in service however were not to be disturbed except to extent of one or more of petitioners on account of increase in his total marks was required to be appointed in their place – Function of Selection Board is to select, empanel and recommend placement of candidate after considering his choices as per Rules – Rule 13(5) of 1998 Rules facilitate adjustments of selected candidates having faced Selection Board, this adjustment is against vacancies notified and advertised – Select list declared – Non-selected candidates questioned incorrect answer key for question No. 80, correction made, re-evaluation done thereafter – Candidates later on selected by application of rectified Answer Key were to be given appointment – Petitioners, therefore, cannot be ousted from service altogether and shall be offered fresh appointments on posts in question – Private respondents also shall be issued appointment letters – Directions issued.
Petitions Disposed of.

JUDGMENT :

Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.

1. This bunch of writ petitions has been filed praying for a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the revised Select List published by U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board, Allahabad (herein-after referred to as the "Selection Board") for the post of Assistant Teacher in L.T. Grade for Hindi subject in pursuance of the Advertisement No. 1 of 2010 published on 12.05.2014, with a further prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus to the respondents not to interfere in the working of the petitioners as Assistant Teachers in L.T. Grade in their respective Institutions and to pay the petitioners their regular salary and allowances from month to month.

2. It is the case of the writ petitioners that the Selection Board issued an Advertisement No. 1 of 2010 on 08.10.2010 inviting applications for filling up large number of teaching posts in different subjects in privately managed recognized and aided Higher Secondary Schools in the State of U.P. This advertisement included 513 posts of Assistant Teachers in L.T. Grade for Hindi subject for boys Institutions and 45 such posts for Hindi Teacher in girls Institutions. The petitioners made their applications and were called for selection. The final Select List was published on 28.06.2011 and the petitioners were duly selected and their names were forwarded by the District Inspector of Schools of respective Districts to the Managements of the various Educational Institutions, for which the petitioners were selected with a direction for appointment. Each of the petitioners were thereafter appointed by the Committee of Management of the Educational Institutions concerned. Some of the petitioners for example, petitioner Nos. 1 and 10 in Writ A No. 28607 of 2014 were subsequently transferred to other Educational Institutions by the Additional Director of Education (Secondary) and they joined these new Institutions and started working. Each of the petitioners had completed almost three years of such working on the post as Assistant Teacher in L.T. Grade for Hindi subject in their respective Institutions and most of them had even been confirmed after successful completion of probation.

3. In November, 2012 one writ petition was filed, namely, Writ Petition No. 61517 of 2012 (Sandeep Kumar Verma vs. State of U.P. and others) praying for a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondent No. 2 (the Selection Board) to award the marks to the petitioner for question No. 80 of Booklet Series "C", in view of the corrected Answer Key, and to consider the case of the petitioner for selection as Trained Graduate Teacher Hindi (herein-after referred to as the T.G.T., Hindi) after adding the awarded marks for Question No. 80 of Booklet Series "C".

4. The writ petitioner Sandeep Kumar Verma alleged in the writ petition that he belonged to OBC Male Category and had secured a total of 427 marks as against the cut off marks of 428 for last candidate selected for OBC Male Category as TGT, Hindi. He claimed that the answer of Question No. 80 in Booklet Series "C" had been corrected by the Selection Board and on such basis, one Rakesh Kumar, son of Raja Ram had been given selection and appointment in the same Category of OBC Male on a vacancy remaining unfilled on account of non joining of selected candidate, Santosh Kumar Kushwaha.

5. In the said writ petition, the petitioner enclosed the copy of the order passed by the Selection Board dated 12.10.2012 in favour of Rakesh Kumar, son of Raja Ram and prayed for grant of similar benefit. Sandeep Kumar Verma also prayed that he had made a representation claiming parity and sympathetic consideration, but the Selection Board had not paid any heed and therefore, he had approached this Court and it may be directed to be decided by the Selection Board.

6. It is the case of the petitioners that neither any challenge was raised to the Select List already published nor any of the selected cand

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2017 Supreme(All) 2335

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURTBEFORE : MRS. SANGEETA CHANDRA, J.RAM NARESH SINGH AND OTHERS ....PetitionersVersusSTATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS ....Respondents(Civil Misc. Writ Petition Nos. 28607, 60869, 60903, 57207, 30743 and 34154 of 2014, decided on 14th December, 2017)

Cases Referred (26)

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
BEFORE : MRS. SANGEETA CHANDRA, J.
RAM NARESH SINGH AND OTHERS ....Petitioners
Versus
STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS ....Respondents
(Civil Misc. Writ Petition Nos. 28607, 60869, 60903, 57207, 30743 and 34154 of 2014, decided on 14th December, 2017)