The main legal point established in the judgment is that the action of the respondents in not preparing a waiting list in compliance with Rule 15(3) of Rules 1992 was arbitrary and against the spirit of the rule. The court issued a writ of mandamus to the Commission to prepare a waiting list in compliance with the rule and consider the petitioner for appointment if eligible and within the merit list.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Durga Prasad Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Shrawan Kumar Dubey, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondent nos.1 & 2 and Sri M.N. Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no.3.

2. The petitioner through the present writ petition has prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the respondent no.1-Additional Chief Secretary (Basic Education), U.P. Government, Lucknow to publish a waiting list for the post of Block Education Officer (Khand Shiksha Adhikari) and further direction to select the petitioner on the post which remains vacant on account of non-joining of selected candidates.

3. The facts in brief of the case are that U.P. Public Service Commission, Prayagraj (hereinafter referred to as 'Commission') published a Notification No.A-4/E-1/2019 dated 13.12.2019 for 309 posts of Block Education Officer. The petitioner possessing the requisite qualifications, applied to be considered for the said post. The petitioner was issued an admit card bearing Roll No.012946. She appeared in the preliminary examination conducted by the Commission, which she qualified. Thereafter, the petitioner appeared in the main examination held on 06.11.2020. The Commission on 30.01.2021 declared the list of 309 candidates qualified for the said posts. However, the petitioner did not qualify as according to the petitioner, she appeared as a general category candidate and secured 207 marks whereas the last selected candidate in the general category secured 208 marks.

4. Further case of the petitioner is that respondent no.2-Additional Director of Education (Basic), Prayagraj issued letters to 271 candidates for appointment to the post of Block Education Officer against 309 successful candidates, therefore, 38 posts of Block Education Officer are vacant as per the appointment list dated 12.03.2021.

5. The petitioner further claims that in an identical controversy State of U.P. has given appointment to one Radha Kulshresththa, who appeared in the examination for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) conducted by the Commission and claimed appointment on two vacancies which remained vacant after joining of successful candidates. When the Commission did not pay any heed to her request, she preferred Writ-A No.2008 of 2022 and during the pendency of the said writ petition, a statement was made by the counsel for the Commission that her name has been recommended for appointment as Civil Judge (Junior Division), and therefore, the petitioner is also entitled to parity with petitioner-Radha Kulshresththa in Writ-A No.2008 of 2022.

6. A short counter affidavit dated 11.04.2023 was filed on behalf of respondents nos.1 & 2, stating therein that in the selection under Notification No.A-4/E-1/2019 dated 13.12.2019, 309 candidates were declared provisionally successful/selected for appointment against the 309 posts of Block Education Officer by the Commission out of which selection against 159 posts of general category were made.

7. The State Government in paragraphs nos.6 to 11 of the short counter affidavit has given details of recommendation by the Commission and date of appointment letters issued to the candidates which are as follows :

8. It is further stated that in pursuance to the recommendation received by the Commission, the Directorate issued appointment letters to 159 can