Hon’ble Irshad Ali, J.—Heard Sri Jaideep Mathur, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Amrendra Nath Tripathi, Sri Alok Kumar Mishra, Sri Onkar Singh Kushwaha, Sri Bahar Ali, Sri Ram Kumar Singh, Sri Vijay Kumar Asthana, Sri Dharmendra Kumar Maurya, Sri Rajesh Kumar Pathak, Sri Onkar Pandey, Sri Alok Kumar Srivastava, Sri Neeraj Kumar Mishra, Sri Vivek Tripathi, Sri Ramesh Kumar Srivastava, Sri Sharad Nandan Ojha, Sri Ajey Singh and Sri Vinay Misra, learned counsel for the petitioners. Learned Advocate General on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Sri Anil Tiwari, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Apurva Tiwari, learned Advocate and Sri S.K. Kalia, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Durga Prasad Shukla, learned counsel for the respondents as well as Sri Vindhyawasini Kumar, learned counsel on behalf of respondent Nos. 3 and 4.

2. The controversy involved in this bunch of writ petitions is that whether permission accorded to the candidates to apply for the post of Assistant Teacher by providing first preference in the counselling from the district, where there are ‘0' vacancy, is permissible under the rules applicable or not.

3. This bunch of writ petitions is being decided by means of a common judgment treating the Writ Petition No. 11375 (S/S) of 2018 (Ram Jank Maurya and others v. State of U.P. and others) as the leading writ petition. In the leading writ petition, the petitioner has filed an amendment application for adding certain facts and grounds alongwith the prayer of writ of certiorari but due to raising the objection by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, he did not press the amendment application. In the bunch of writ petitions there are three writ petitions, which are numbered as Writ Petition Nos. 11947 (S/S) of 2018, 12656 (S/S) of 2018 and 5734 (S/S) of 2018, wherein the petitioners have prayed for issuance of writ of certiorari quashing the instruction No. 6 (b) issued on 26.12.2016 to the extent it allows the candidates of other districts, where are ‘0' vacancy to be eligible for selection in other districts on the basis of their first preference. Further prayer has been made for issuance of writ of certiorari quashing the notification dated 15.3.2017 to the extent it allows the candidates of other districts, where there are ‘0' vacancy to be eligible for selection in other districts on the basis of their first preference.

4. That the petitioners have prayed for issuance of writ of certiorari quashing Clause 6 (b) of the notification dated 26.12.2016 to the extent it permits the applicants from the districts where no vacancy exists to apply from any district of their choice as first preference district and to issue writ of mandamus commanding the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to prepare a fresh cut off mark to appear in the first round of counselling by excluding the persons who had obtained B.T.C. training from outside the District Gonda and accordingly the first round of counselling to be declared in pursuance of the Government Order dated 15.12.2016/11.4.2018 and notification of the respondent No. 3 dated 26.12.2016, 2.3.2017 and 16.4.2018 for appointment of 12460 posts of Assistant Teachers and outsiders to be allowed in the subsequent round of counselling only as per the policy of the State Government, as reflected in the counter-affidavit filed in Writ Petition No. 10131 of 2015 (M.B. Om Prakash Singh and others v. State of U.P. and others).

5. The factual matrix of the case is that the State Government issued a Government Order on 15.12.2016, whereby the decision was taken to make appointment against 12460 posts of Assistant Teachers in the basic schools of U.P. run and managed by the Board of Basic Education. In pursuance to the Government Order issued on 15.12.2016, the Secretary U.P. Basic Education Board issued a Circular on 20.12.2016 fixing time schedule for s