Point of Law : State do not dispute the proposition of law that after a candidate from the select list joins service, the selection process comes to an end and the waiting list cannot be acted upon as the post stands filled up.

ORDER :

RAJESH BINDAL, C.J.

1. The present intra-court appeal has been filed impugning the interim order dated August 11, 2021 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in a writ petition filed by respondent No.7.

2. Mr. Arvind Kumar Pandey, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.7 raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the present appeal against the interim order passed by learned Single Judge. In support of his arguments, he relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Special Appeal No. 1115 of 2019 (Har Nath Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others), dated November 1, 2019.

3. Mr. Radha Kant Ojha, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that an advertisement was issued for selection and appointment to the post of Principal in various institutions including Rani Avanti Bai Inter College, Marhara, District Etah (hereinafter referred to as the ‘College’) in the year 2002. Select list was notified on September 29, 2003. So far as the select list of the College is concerned, Dr. Dinesh Vashishth was at Sr. No.1 whereas Sudhir Kumar Gupta was at Sr. No. 2 and the appellant was at Sr. No. 3 in the merit list.

4. A writ petition was filed by Sudhir Kumar Gupta, the candidate at Sr. No.2 in the merit list, with reference to the said selection and appointment, bearing Writ-A No. 45747 of 2008 (Sudhir Kumar Gupta Vs. State of U.P. and others). In the said writ petition, vide order dated September 3, 2008, operation of the orders impugned therein dated July 31, 2008 and August 12, 2008, was stayed. The said order was challenged by Dr. Dinesh Vashishth by filing Special Appeal No. 1282 of 2008 (Dr. Dinesh Vashishth Vs. State of U.P. and others), which was allowed on September 25, 2008. While setting aside the order dated September 3, 2008 passed by learned Single Judge, a request was made to the learned Single Judge for deciding the writ petition expeditiously. The aforesaid writ petition is stated to be still pending.

5. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that Dr. Dinesh Vashishth, who was at Sr. No. 1 in the merit list has since retired after attaining the age of superannuation, he is no more a candidate. The candidate at Sr. No. 2 in the merit list namely, Sudhir Kumar Gupta has also left service and hence no more interested to be appointed as Principal of the College. Hence, the appellant was the only candidate available from the select list for being offered appointment as Principal of the College. As his claim was not being considered, he filed Writ-A No. 8770 of 2020 before this Court. The said writ petition was disposed of on November 11, 2020 with a direction to the Joint Director of Education, Aligarh Region, Aligarh to consider and decide the representation filed by the appellant. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the claim of the appellant was considered and vide order dated June 26, 2021, a direction was issued for appointment of the appellant as Principal of the College. As far as competence of the Joint Director of Education to direct for appointment of the appellant as Principal is concerned, reference was made to Rule 13(4) of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Selection Board Rules, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’). It was further argued that in the Rules, there is no time limit prescribed for the life of a select list. However, in the case in hand, the same is still alive, for the reason that the Division Bench of this Court while disposing of Special Appeal No. 1282 of 2008 filed by Dr. Dinesh Vashishth, had directed that the life of the select list would continue till the decision of the writ petition by the learned Single Judge. As the writ petition is still pending, the select list is valid. In pursuance of the aforesaid order passed by the Joint Director of Education, an appointment letter was issued in favour of the appellant on July 26, 2021. He joined service and his signatures were also attested. With the passing of the impugne