Allahabad High Court
Km. Shivani And Anr. vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... on 10 May, 2018
Bench: Rajesh Singh Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 23
Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 13519 of 2018
Petitioner :- Km. Shivani And Anr.
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Edu. And Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Himanshu Raghave,Durga Prasad Shukla
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Akay Kumar,Shobhit Mohan Shukla
Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.
Heard Sri Himanshu Raghave, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents, Sri Shobhit Mohan Shukla, learned counsel for the District Basic Education Officer, Sitapur and Sri Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for opposite party No.3.
By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the list of candidates from other district where no posts of Assistant Teachers have been advertised in on going selection process for appointment of 12,460 Assistant Teachers in the Primary Schools of Uttar Pradesh, who participated in the first round of counselling in District-Sitapur, but had initially made more than one on-line applications for other districts as well, issued by the District Basic Education Officer, Sitapur for the purposes of excluding such candidates from the selection process, to the extent the petitioners are concerned.
The perusal of the aforesaid prayer reveals that the petitioners have applied for more than one district. Learned counsel for the petitioners has enclosed the guidelines for applying for the post of Assistant Teachers, which is contained as Annexure No.5 to the writ petition, wherein the condition No.6 (Cha) categorically provides that one candidate shall apply for one district only and the condition No.6 (Ja) reads that an affidavit on Non-Judicial Stamp of Rs.10/- would be submitted at the time of counselling that he/she has followed the conditions for applying on the post of Assistant Teachers.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted with vehemence that since the original documents of the candidate remains with the district where the candidate participates in the counselling at the first stage and, therefore, there is no question for any candidate to appear before the counselling in other district being the condition that one candidate shall apply for only one district and shall submit the affidavit to that effect, does not appear to be appropriate and reasonable.
Per contra, Sri Shobhit Mohan Shukla, learned counsel for the opposite party No.4 has submitted that since the petitioners had applied for the post in question strictly in accordance with the guidelines so annexed as Annexure No.5 to the writ petition without challenging the same, therefore, they cannot raise any grievance after putting an appearance in the counselling.
Sri Shukla has further submitted that since the condition No.6 (Cha) and 6 (Ja) have been flouted by the petitioners, therefore, by means of Annexure No.1, the list of candidates have been declared, who have violated the condition No.6 (Cha) and 6 (Ja).
Sri Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite party No.3 has submitted that since the petitioners have applied for more than one district and on account of which the rights of the candidates of such district have been prejudiced for the reasons that the petitioners were having better merits and the candidates of that district, who were in less merits, could not participate in the counselling. He has also submitted that if the petitioners were not applied in other district, the candidates of that district would have been called for the counselling. Sri Ajay Kumar has produced a Circular dated 09.05.2018 issued by the Basic Shiksha Parishad, U.P.,Allahabad wherein it has been categorically indicated that the application of those candidates have been reejeceted who have applied in more than one district in view of the guidelines issued to that effect, but keeping in view the interest, those candidates may be permitted in the second counselling if it takes place. A photocopy of the Circular dated 09.05.2018 is taken on record.
The matter requires consideration.
Let the counter affidavit be filed by the opposite parties within a period of three weeks. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within ten days thereafter.
List immediately after expiry of the aforesaid period as fresh.
Since the Circular dated 09.05.2018 (supra) protects the interest of the petitioners and other similarly placed persons, therefore, the authority concerned shall permit the petitioners in second counselling, if it takes place. It is also provided that the selection made for the post in question shall be subject to final outcome of the writ petition.
Order Date :- 10.5.2018
Suresh/
[Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.]
