A candidate's inclusion in a select list does not confer an indefeasible right to appointment; the authorities have discretion in the selection process.

JUDGMENT :

Yogendra Kumar Srivastava, J.

1. Heard Ms. Usha Kiran, learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner, Sri Manoj Kumar Mishra, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondent(s) and Sri Gagan Mehta, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2, the Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Service Commission.

2. The present intra-Court appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 23.7.2024 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Court in Writ - A No. 8718 of 2024 (Sudhanshu Aggarwal v. State of U.P. and others).

3. The facts of the case as emerging from the records are that the writ petition had been filed seeking a direction to the opposite parties to give him a choice for appointment as Assistant Professor, Mathematics at Hindu College Moradabad or K.G.K.P.G. College Moradabad instead of Satish Chandra College, Ballia and permit him to join on any of the aforesaid two posts.

4. The selection process, pursuant to an advertisement, bearing Advertisement No. 50 of 2021, was initiated for making selections for appointment to the posts of Assistant Professors in non-Government aided colleges, which included 96 posts in the subject of Mathematics. The petitioner, upon declaration of results, was placed at Serial No. 8 of the waiting list, however various writ petitions were filed challenging the selection process. One of such writ petitions, being Writ - A No. 13104 of 2023 [Sanjay Prakash Dubey v. State of U.P. and others] was decided by means of a judgment and order dated 6.10.2023, remanding the matter to the Director of Higher Education and providing that the petitioner therein may prefer a comprehensive representation before him. In compliance of the order passed by this Court, the waiting list was corrected and the petitioner was placed at Serial No. 28. The petitioner was directed to submit his preference of colleges for his appointment. The petitioner submitted his preferential list of 30 colleges, in which Satish Chandra College, Ballia was mentioned at Serial No. 28. The Director Education (Higher Education) wrote a letter dated 15.3.2024 to the Secretary/Manager/Authorized Controller, Satish Chandra College, Ballia, recommending the name of the petitioner, for being appointed on a post of Assistant Professor in that college.

5. Insofar as the claim of the petitioner for a choice of appointment as Assistant Professor, Mathematics at Hindu College Moradabad or K.G.K.P.G. College Moradabad instead of Satish Chandra College, Ballia is concerned, learned Single Judge has taken note of paragraphs 9 and 10 of the supplementary-affidavit of the petitioner wherein a claim based on equity was raised. However, since none of the aforesaid two colleges had been mentioned in the preferential list submitted by the petitioner, it was held that no illegality had been committed by the authorities in giving appointment to the petitioner in a college specified at serial No. 28 of the preferential list submitted by the petitioner.

6. Learned Single Judge has also taken note of the fact that nothing had been placed on record to indicate that any person standing lower in the merit has been given appointment in any of the colleges above serial No. 28 in the preferential list of the petitioner in which, he had been offered appointment.

7. Upon the appeal being taken up, on 29.8.2024, before a coordinate Bench of this Court, it was sought to be argued by learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner that one Km Arti, who had been placed at serial No. 31 of the revised select list, had been granted placement at an institution, which had not been notified for recruitment. It was also urged that in case, there is any vacancy, at this stage, the appellant-petitioner would seek the relief for being granted placement at any of the institutions, which had been specified at serial Nos. 1 to 27 of the preferential list submitted by the petitioner.

8. Taking note of the aforesaid submissions, counsel for the State-respondents was directed to obtain