Allahabad High Court
Rishabh Mishra & Others vs State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Basic ... on 20 December, 2021
Bench: J.J. Munir
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Court No. - 18 Reserved
A.F.R.
Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 8056 of 2020
Petitioner :- Rishabh Mishra & Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Basic Edu. Lko & Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Lalta Prasad Misra,Amit Kr. Singh Bhadauriya,Prabhakar Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ajay
Connected petitions
1. Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 8057 of 2020
Petitioner :- Rajeev Kumar Shukla And Ors.
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Through Addl.Chief Secy.Basic Education And Ors
Counsel for Petitioner :- Vinay Misra,Ashish Verma,Mukesh Kumar Tewari
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ajay Yadav
2. Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 8062 of 2020
Petitioner :- Anurag Yadav & Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Secretary Basic Education & Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Amit Kr. Singh Bhadauriya
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ajay
3. Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 8063 of 2020
Petitioner :- Amita Tripathi & Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin. Secretary Basic Education & Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Avdhesh Shukla
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
4. Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 8071 of 2020
Petitioner :- Mahesh Kumar & Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Addl.Chief Secy. Basic Education & Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Onkar Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ajay Kumar
5. Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 8085 of 2020
Petitioner :- Pradeep Kumar & Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Basic Edu. Lko & Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajay "Madhavan",Lalit Kumar Singh Yadav,Piyush Agnihotri,Vikram Sonal Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ajay
6. Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 8095 of 2020
Petitioner :- Ashish Tiwari & Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Basic Edu. Lko & Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Amrendra Nath Tripathi,Jitendra Bahadur
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ajay Yadav
7. Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 8096 of 2020
Petitioner :- Inder Dawan Singh Yadav
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Basic Edu. Lko & Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Abhishek Srivastava,Devki Nandan Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ajay Kumar Yadav
8. Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 8099 of 2020
Petitioner :- Shivani Verma And Ors.
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Through Secy.Basic Education And Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Amrendra Nath Tripathi
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ajai Kumar
9. Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 8101 of 2020
Petitioner :- Manoj Kumar Pal & Ors.
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Basic Education & Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Avdhesh Shukla
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
10. Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 8125 of 2020
Petitioner :- Rakesh Kumar Tiwari
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Through Addl.Chief Secy.Basic Education & Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Saryu Prasad Tiwari,Dharmendra Kumar Tiwari
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Neeraj Chaurasiya
11. Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 8128 of 2020
Petitioner :- Sushil Kumar Mishra & 55 Ors.
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru Addl.Chief Secy.Basic Education Lko & Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Onkar Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
12. Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 8131 of 2020
Petitioner :- Abhishek Mishra
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru Secy.Basic Education Lucknow & Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Onkar Nath Tiwari
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
13. Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 8145 of 2020
Petitioner :- Shobha Devi
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru Addl.Chief Secy.Basic Education Lko & Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajay Sharma
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
14. Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 8146 of 2020
Petitioner :- Suresh Kumar Sonkar & Anr.
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru Addl.Chief Secy.Basic Education Lko & Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Alok Kr. Misra,Shobh Nath Pandey
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
15. Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 8151 of 2020
Petitioner :- Vijaya Yadav
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru Addl.Chief Secy.Basic Education Lko & Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajay Pratap Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
16. Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 8189 of 2020
Petitioner :- Ram Suresh And Ors.
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Through Prin.Secy. Basic Education And Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Shyam Mohan Upadhyay
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
17. Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 8190 of 2020
Petitioner :- Dinesh Kumar And Ors.
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Through Prin.Secy. Basic Education And Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Avdhesh Shukla,Pramod Kumar Verma
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ajay Kumar
18. Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 8191 of 2020
Petitioner :- Himani Gupta And Ors.
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Through Secy. Basic Education And Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Amrendra Nath Tripathi,Ashish Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ajay Kumar
19. Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 8193 of 2020
Petitioner :- Sudhir Kumar
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Through Addl.Chief Secy.Basic Education And Ors
Counsel for Petitioner :- Saryu Prasad Tiwari
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
20. Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 8198 of 2020
Petitioner :- Milan Singh & Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Edu. Lko & Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- O.P. Tiwari
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ajay
21. Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 8200 of 2020
Petitioner :- Akhilashwer Pratap Mishra & Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Edu. Lko & Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- I.M. Pandey Ist,Pratyush Chaube
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ajay
22. Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 8205 of 2020
Petitioner :- Raj Kumar Mishra & Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Basic Edu. Lko & Ors
Counsel for Petitioner :- Onkar Singh,Nand Kishore Patel,Satya Narayan Yadav
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ajay
23. Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 8225 of 2020
Petitioner :- Rajesh Kumar Tripathi And Ors.
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Through Addl.Chief Secy.Basic Education & Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Onkar Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ajay Kumar
24. Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 8233 of 2020
Petitioner :- Kumari Shikha Tiwari & Ors.
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Basic Education & Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- I.M. Pandey Ist,Rudra Kumar Tiwari
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ajay Kumar
25. Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 8236 of 2020
Petitioner :- Rashmi Rai
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Through Prin.Secy.Basic Education And Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ranjana Agnihotri
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Rahul Srivastava
26. Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 8241 of 2020
Petitioner :- Smt. Shikha Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Basic Edu. Lko & Ors
Counsel for Petitioner :- Avinash Pandey,Raj Kumar Upadhyaya (R.K.,Sudhir Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ajay
27. Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 8256 of 2020
Petitioner :- Deepshikha & Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Basic Education Lko. & Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Amit Kr. Singh Bhadauriya
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ajay
28. Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 8258 of 2020
Petitioner :- Rachna Mishra & Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Basic Edu. Deptt. Lko & Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Amit Kr. Singh Bhadauriya
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ajay
29. Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 8279 of 2020
Petitioner :- Shailini Yadav
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Addl. Chief Secy. Basic Education & Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Shri Narayan Pandey,Sachin Pratap Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,J.B.S. Rathour
30. Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 8280 of 2020
Petitioner :- Saroj Pal & Ors.
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin. Secretary Basic Education & Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Avdhesh Shukla
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
31. Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 8318 of 2020
Petitioner :- Mohammadun & Ors.
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Addl. Chief Secy. Basic Education & Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Onkar Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ajay Kumar
32. Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 8322 of 2020
Petitioner :- Sanju & Ors.
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Secretary Basic Education & Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Amit Kr. Singh Bhadauriya
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ajay Kumar
33. Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 8325 of 2020
Petitioner :- Kanchan Verma
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin. Secretary Basic Education & Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Surya Prakash Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ajay Kumar
34. Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 8338 of 2020
Petitioner :- Abhijeet Singh @ Abhijit Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Basic Education & Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Sanjay Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ajay Kumar
35. Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 8377 of 2020
Petitioner :- Archana Srivastava
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru.Addl.Chief Secy.Basic Education Lko.&Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajay Pratap Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ajay
36. Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 8385 of 2020
Petitioner :- Ravi Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl Chief Secy. Basic Shiksha & Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Dhirendra Pratap Singh,Arjun Singh "Kalhans"
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ajay
37. Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 8386 of 2020
Petitioner :- Ranjana & Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl Chief Secy. Basic Shiksha & Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
38. Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 8388 of 2020
Petitioner :- Vishakha Rajpoot & Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Basic Edu. Lko & Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Jitendra Bahadur
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ajay Kumar
39. Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 8391 of 2020
Petitioner :- Shri Gopal Maurya & Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl Chief Secy. Basic Edu. Lko & Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajesh Kumar,Adarsh Kumar Maurya,Shailesh Kumar Shukla
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ajay
40. Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 8396 of 2020
Petitioner :- Amit Kumar & Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Edu. Lko & Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Arun Kumar Verma
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ajay
41. Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 8403 of 2020
Petitioner :- Mamta Singh And Ors.
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Throu.Secy.Basic Education Lko.And Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Suneel Kumar Singh Kalhan,Shikha Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ajay
42. Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 8404 of 2020
Petitioner :- Ranjana Devi And Ors.
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Throu.Secy.Basic Education Lko.And Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajeiu Kumar Tripathi
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ajay Kumar
43. Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 8409 of 2020
Petitioner :- Anurag Kumar Gupta And Ors.
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Throu.Prin.Secy.Basic Education Lko.And Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Shyam Mohan Upadhyay
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
44. Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 8423 of 2020
Petitioner :- Himani Dubey & Ors.
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Secretary Basic Education & Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashutosh Mishra,Onkar Nath Tiwari
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ajay Kumar
45. Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 8448 of 2020
Petitioner :- Arti Verma & Ors.
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Basic Education,Lko.& Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Amrendra Nath Tripathi,Ashutosh Shahi
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ajay Kumar
46. Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 8451 of 2020
Petitioner :- Reeta Devi
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru Prin.Secretary. Basic Education.Lko.& Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Dinesh Kumar
47. Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 8452 of 2020
Petitioner :- Kamlesh Kumar & Ors.
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru Addl. Chief Secy. Basic Edu. & Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajesh Kumar Verma,Aditya Vikram Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ajay Kumar
48. Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 8453 of 2020
Petitioner :- Jyoti Devi
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru Secretary Basic Education & Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Prashant Agarwal,Shashi Prabha Arya
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
49. Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 8454 of 2020
Petitioner :- Urmila Devi & Ors.
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru Addl. Chief Secretary Basic Education &Ors
Counsel for Petitioner :- Mukesh Kumar Tewari,Ashish Verma
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ajay Kumar
50. Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 8456 of 2020
Petitioner :- Shamim Ahmad
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru Secretary Basic Education & Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Tanay Hazari,A. Tiwari
51. Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 8498 of 2020
Petitioner :- Sangram Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Through Addl.Chief Secy.Basic Education & Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Prashant Kumar Singh,Apoorv Dev
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ajay Kumar
52. Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 8658 of 2020
Petitioner :- Shamiuddin Khan
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Education & Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Farooqahmad
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ajay Kumar
53. Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 8659 of 2020
Petitioner :- Deepti Saini
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Edu. Lko & Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Arvind Pratap Singh,Vivek Kumar Tripathi
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
54. Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 8725 of 2020
Petitioner :- Neelima Srivastava
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Through Prin.Secy. Basic Education And Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Rishi Raj,Atul Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ajay Kumar
55. Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 8836 of 2020
Petitioner :- Ram Rani
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Basic Edu. Lucknow And Anr.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Umesh Chandra Chaturvedi
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
56. Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 8866 of 2020
Petitioner :- Meena Kumari & Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Edu. Lko & Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Avdhesh Shukla,Pramod Kumar Verma
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
57. Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 8908 of 2020
Petitioner :- Ramlaxman Tiwari
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Basic Education & Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Desh Deepak Singh,Anilesh Tewari,Nitesh Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
58. Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 8989 of 2020
Petitioner :- Preeti Verma
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Addl.Chief Secy. Basic Edu. Lko. & Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Arvind Kumar Pathak,Sandeep Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
59. Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 9037 of 2020
Petitioner :- Raj Yadav And Ors.
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Through Secy. Basic Education And Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Santosh Kr. Yadav "Warsi",Lalji Yadav
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ajay Kumar
60. Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 9121 of 2020
Petitioner :- Shweta Bharti And 208 Ors.
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Secy.Basic Edu. Lucknow And Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Amit Kr. Singh Bhadauriya,Lal Bahadur Singh Bhadaur
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ajay Kumar
61. Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 9655 of 2020
Petitioner :- Sarvesh Kumar Gautam
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Basic Edu. Lko & Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Arvind Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ajay Kumar
62. Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 10426 of 2020
Petitioner :- Preeti Pal (Obc)
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru.Secy.Basic Education,Lko.& Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Gyanendra Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ajay Kumar
63. Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 10431 of 2020
Petitioner :- Km. Pooja Rani
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Basic Education & Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Hari Krishna Srivastava,Surya Narayan Mishra
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ajay Kumar
64. Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 10972 of 2020
Petitioner :- Renu Shukla And Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru Addl. Chief Secy. Basic Edu. Lko. & Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Mukesh Kumar Tewari,Ashish Verma
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ajay Kumar
65. Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 11334 of 2020
Petitioner :- Archana Yadav
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl.Chief Secy. Basic Education & Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Raj Priya Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
66. Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 11467 of 2020
Petitioner :- Ram Rani
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Basic Edu. Lko & Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajesh Kumar
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ajai Kumar
67. Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 14177 of 2020
Petitioner :- Shagufta Jahan
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl.Chief Secy. Basic Education & Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Srideep Chatterjee
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ajay
68. Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 14350 of 2020
Petitioner :- Karishma Verma
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Education & Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Santosh Kumar Verma,Vivek Kumar Verma
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
69. Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 19893 of 2020
Petitioner :- Preeti Singh & Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Edu. Lko & Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Lakshmana Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ajay Kumar
70. Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 21886 of 2020
Petitioner :- Satyam Tiwari & Ors.
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru.Secy.Basic Education & Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Mujtaba Kamal Sherwani,Anas Sherwani,Dr.M.K.Sherwani,Prakhar Misra
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ajay Kumar
71. Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 22803 of 2020
Petitioner :- Manoj Kumar & Ors.
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Basic Education, Lko.& Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajeev Narayan Pandey
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C,Ajay Kumar
72. Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 23359 of 2020
Petitioner :- Pramila
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru.Secy.Basic Education & Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Santosh Kumar Yadav,Brijesh Kumar
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ajay Kumar,Ran Vijay Singh
73. Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 24800 of 2020
Petitioner :- Rama Pandey & Ors.
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru.Secy.Basic Education & Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Amit Kr. Singh Bhadauriya,Lal Bahadur Singh Bhadaur
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ran Vijay Singh
74. Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 24801 of 2020
Petitioner :- Somendra Kumar & Ors.
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru.Secy.Basic Education & Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Amit Kr. Singh Bhadauriya,Lal Bahadur Singh Bhadaur
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ran Vijay Singh
75. Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 24824 of 2020
Petitioner :- Saroj Kumar & Ors.
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru.Secy. Basic Education & Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Amit Kr. Singh Bhadauriya,Lal Bahadur Singh Bhadaur
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ran Vijay Singh
76. Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 24826 of 2020
Petitioner :- Subhash Chandra Dixit & Ors.
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru.Secy. Basic Education & Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Amit Kr. Singh Bhadauriya,Lal Bahadur Singh Bhadaur
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ran Vijay Singh
77. Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 24827 of 2020
Petitioner :- Jyoti Kumari & Ors.
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru.Secy. Basic Education & Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Amit Kr. Singh Bhadauriya,Lal Bahadur Singh Bhadaur
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ran Vijay Singh
78. Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 24828 of 2020
Petitioner :- Ram Sahay & Ors.
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru.Secy. Basic Education & Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Amit Kr. Singh Bhadauriya,Lal Bahadur Singh Bhadaur
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ran Vijay Singh
79. Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 24837 of 2020
Petitioner :- Kajal & Ors.
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Basic Education,Lucknow & Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajeev Narayan Pandey
80. Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 671 of 2021
Petitioner :- Lalit Kumar & Ors.
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl.Chief Secy.Basic Education,Lko.&Ors
Counsel for Petitioner :- Onkar Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ranvijay Singh
81. Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 1847 of 2021
Petitioner :- Samiksha Rastogi & Anr.
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Basic Education,Lko.& Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Chandra Dwivedi,Girish Chandra Misra
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ajay Kumar
82. Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 2675 of 2021
Petitioner :- Bablesh Kumar & Ors.
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Basic Education,Lko.& Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Deepak Singh,Akhand Pratap Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ajay Kumar,Ran Vijay Singh
83. Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 2856 of 2021
Petitioner :- Swati
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru.Secy. Basic Education & Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Santosh Kumar Shukla
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ran Vijay Singh
84. Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 3188 of 2021
Petitioner :- Bindu Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Basic Education,Lko.& Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Dinesh Kumar
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
85. Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 3216 of 2021
Petitioner :- Manoj Kumar & Anr.
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Basic Education,Lko.& Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohammad Aziz Mansuri
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
86. Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 4016 of 2021
Petitioner :- Ram Narayan Yadav
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru.Secy. Basic Education & Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Vinod Kumar Maurya
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ran Vijay Singh
87. Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 4223 of 2021
Petitioner :- Amit Kumar Srivastava & Ors.
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru.Prin.Secy. Basic Education & Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Prem Kumar Srivastava,Neelamber Misra,Raman Awasthi
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ran Vijay Singh
88. Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 4290 of 2021
Petitioner :- Amrit Lal
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru.Secy. Basic Education & Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Sivendra Kumar Srivastav,Aditya Bhaskar Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ran Vijay Singh
89. Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 4371 of 2021
Petitioner :- Punita Devi & Ors.
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru.Addl.Chief Secy./Prin.Secy.Basic Edu.& Ors
Counsel for Petitioner :- Arvind Kumar Tiwari
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ran Vijay Singh
90. Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 4443 of 2021
Petitioner :- Renu Singh & Ors.
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl.Chief Secy.Basic Education,Lko.&Ors
Counsel for Petitioner :- Onkar Singh,Surendra Kumar Verma
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ranvijay Singh
91. Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 4446 of 2021
Petitioner :- Jitendra Kumar & Ors.
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Basic Education,Lko.&Ors
Counsel for Petitioner :- Dinesh Kumar,Vishal Kumar Yadav
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
92. Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 4528 of 2021
Petitioner :- Amit Kumar & Anr.
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru.Secy. Basic Education & Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Anurag Arora,Sarvesh Kumar Tiwari
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ran Vijay Singh
93. Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 4625 of 2021
Petitioner :- Deep Shikah Asthana & Ors.
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru.Addl.Chief Secy. Basic Education,Lko.&Ors
Counsel for Petitioner :- Suyesh Pradhan
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ran Vijay Singh,Sriram Maurya
94. Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 4665 of 2021
Petitioner :- Vandana Mishra & Anr.
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru.Secy. Basic Education & Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Manoj Kumar Singh,Pankaj Kumar Shukla
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ran Vijay Singh
95. Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 4795 of 2021
Petitioner :- Premlata Srivastav
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru.Prin.Secy. Basic Education & Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajesh Kumar Verma
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ran Vijay Singh
96. Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 4931 of 2021
Petitioner :- Pratima
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru.Secy. Basic Education & Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohd. Azam Khan
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ran Vijay Singh
97. Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 5223 of 2021
Petitioner :- Savit Maurya
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Basic Education,Lko.& Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Nitin Kumar Mishra,Vijay Kumar Dwivedi
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ran Vijay Singh
98. Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 5553 of 2021
Petitioner :- Krishna Kumar
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru.Prin.Secy. Basic Education & Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Shyam Mohan Upadhyay
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ran Vijay Singh
99. Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 6769 of 2021
Petitioner :- Amit Maurya & Anr.
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru.Secy. Basic Education & Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Tanay Hazari,Alka Verma,Rahul Singh,Shivam Tiwari
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ran Vijay Singh
100. Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 6843 of 2021
Petitioner :- Rahul Kumar Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru.Secy. Basic Education & Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Alok Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ran Vijay Singh
101. Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 9552 of 2021
Petitioner :- Gulshan Verma & Ors.
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru.Addl.Chief Secy. Basic Education & Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Vinay Misra,Mukesh Dhar Dwivedi,Prem Narayan Sharma,Priyanka Jaiswal
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ran Vijay Singh
102. Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 12777 of 2021
Petitioner :- Nitu Yadav
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl.Chief Secy. Basic Education & Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Arvind Kumar Pathak,Vinod Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
103. Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 16713 of 2021
Petitioner :- Pratima Priyadarshi & Ors.
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Education & Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Anil Kumar Maurya,Pramod Kumar Maurya
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ran Vijay Singh
104. Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 20791 of 2021
Petitioner :- Alok Kumar & Ors.
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Basic Education & Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Mujtaba Kamal Sherwani,Anas Sherwani,Dr.Mustafa Kamal Sherwani,Illegible,Prakhar Misra,Saiyad Farhan Ali
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ran Vijay Singh
105. Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 21817 of 2021
Petitioner :- Meenakshi Mishra & Ors.
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Basic Edu.) & Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Om Chandra Sahu,Sudhakar Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ran Vijay Singh
106. Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 22143 of 2021
Petitioner :- Mohd. Salman Ansari & Ors.
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Education & Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Avdhesh Shukla
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ran Vijay Singh
107. Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 22145 of 2021
Petitioner :- Arpit Kumar
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Basic Education & Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Arun Kumar Mishra,Abhishek Mishra,Hemant Kumar
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ran Vijai Singh
108. Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 22172 of 2021
Petitioner :- Ravi Yadav & Ors.
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Basic Education & Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Mujtaba Kamal Sherwani,Anas Sherwani,Dr. M.K.Sherwani,M.M.Qurashi,Prakhar Misra
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ran Vijay Singh
109. Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 22501 of 2021
Petitioner :- Rinkee Verma & Ors.
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Basic Education Lko. & Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajesh Kumar Pathak
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ran Vijay Singh
110. Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 22503 of 2021
Petitioner :- Smt. Divya Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Basic Education Lko. & Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Pawan Kumar Pandey,Shashank Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ran Vijay Singh
111. Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 22507 of 2021
Petitioner :- Shrish Chandra Panday & Ors.
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Basic Education Lko. & Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Mujtaba Kamal Sherwani,Anas Sherwani,Mohd. Maqdoom Qureshi,Prakhar Misra,Saiyed Farhan Ali
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ran Vijay Singh
112. Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 22519 of 2021
Petitioner :- Kamleshwar Prasad Tiwari & Ors.
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Basic Education & Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Amrendra Nath Tripathi,L.B.Singh Bhadauria,Onkar Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ran Vijay Singh
113. Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 22659 of 2021
Petitioner :- Sandhya Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Basic Education Lko. & Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Awadhesh Kumar Tiwari
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ran Vijay Singh
114. Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 22719 of 2021
Petitioner :- Anupam Singh & Ors.
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl.Chief Secy. Basic Education & Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Shitla Prasad Tripathi,Aditya Vikram Singh,Deepti Singh,Vijay Bhan Pandey
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ran Vijay Singh
115. Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 22760 of 2021
Petitioner :- Kiran Bala Tiwari
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl.Chief Secy. Basic Education & Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Dileep Kumar Tiwari
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ran Vijay Singh
116. Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 22801 of 2021
Petitioner :- Manorama Singh & Ors.
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Basic Education & Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajeev Narayan Pandey,Pradeep Kumar Dwivedi,Vaibhav Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ran Vijay Singh
117. Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 22819 of 2021
Petitioner :- Purnima Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Education Lko. & Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Amit Chaudhary,Rishi Raj
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ran Vijay Singh
118. Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 22820 of 2021
Petitioner :- Vishnu & Anr.
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Education Lko. & Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Saurabh Shukla,Pragati Singh,Prashant Vikram Singh,Vinod Kumar
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ran Vijay Singh
119. Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 22864 of 2021
Petitioner :- Garima Sharma & Ors.
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl.Chief Secy. Basic Education & Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Sharad Kumar Srivastava,Amol Kumar,Virendra Kumar
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ran Vijay Singh
120. Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 22891 of 2021
Petitioner :- Anuragini Gaur & Anr.
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl.Chief Secy. Basic Shiksha & Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ran Vijay Singh
121. Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 22892 of 2021
Petitioner :- Alka Panday
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl.Chief Secy. Basic Education & Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Dinesh Kumar Mishra,Nishant Mishra
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ran Vijay Singh
122. Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 22909 of 2021
Petitioner :- Preeti Verma
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl.Chief Secy. Basic Education & Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajesh Kumar'Kashyap',Shailesh Kumar Shukla
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ran Vijay Singh
123. Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 22919 of 2021
Petitioner :- Abhishek Singh & Ors.
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl.Chief Secy. Basic Education & Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Onkar Singh,L.B.Singh Bhadauria,Nand Kishore Patel,Naveen Shukla
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ran Vijay Singh
124. Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 23042 of 2021
Petitioner :- Dolly Pal
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Basic Education Lko. & Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Suyash Manjul,Vibhanshu Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ran Vijay Singh
125. Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 23128 of 2021
Petitioner :- Arun Kumar & Ors.
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl.Chief Secy. Basic Education & Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Onkar Singh,Ajay "Madhavan",Ashutosh,L.B.Singh Bhadauria,Pramod Kumar Verma
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ran Vijay Singh
126. Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 23153 of 2021
Petitioner :- Divya Sharma & Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Basic Edu. Lko & Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Mujtaba Kamal Sherwani,Anas Sherwani,Mohd. Maqdoom Qureshi,Prakhar Misra,Sayed Farhan
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ran Vijay Singh
127. Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 23182 of 2021
Petitioner :- Smt. Sunita Mishra
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl.Chief Secy. Basic Education & Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Suneel Kumar,Anupam Dwivedi,Snehil Shukla
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ran Vijay Singh
128. Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 23192 of 2021
Petitioner :- Arvind Kumar & Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Basic Edu. Lko & Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Deepak Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ran Vijay Singh
129. Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 23303 of 2021
Petitioner :- Yogesh Kumar Mishra
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Basic Education & Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Pankaj Kumar Tiwari,Rakesh Kumar Tripathi
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ran Vijay Singh
130. Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 23395 of 2021
Petitioner :- Awadh Raj & Ors.
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Basic Education & Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Deepak Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ran Vijay Singh
131. Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 23435 of 2021
Petitioner :- Renu Kumari
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl.Chief Secy. Basic Education & Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Rakesh Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Prashant Arora
132. Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 23481 of 2021
Petitioner :- Priyanka Singh & Ors.
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Basic Education & Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Deepak Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ran Vijay Singh
133. Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 23494 of 2021
Petitioner :- Neha Devi
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Education Lko. & Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Desh Raj Singh Yadav
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
134. Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 23538 of 2021
Petitioner :- Gyanendra Singh & Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Basic Edu. & Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Deepak Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ran Vijay Singh
135. Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 23563 of 2021
Petitioner :- Manoj Kumar Pal & Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Basic Edu. Lko & Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Deepak Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ran Vijay Singh
136. Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 23621 of 2021
Petitioner :- Anuj Panwar
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Education & Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Shashank Singh,Ruby Chaudhary
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ran Vijay Singh
137. Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 23627 of 2021
Petitioner :- Pravesh Kumar
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Basic Education & Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Mukesh Kumar Tewari,Ashish Verma
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ran Vijay Singh
138. Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 23630 of 2021
Petitioner :- Satendra Kumar Kushwaha
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Basic Education & Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Shyam Mohan Upadhyay,Suneel Kumar Maurya
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ran Vijay Singh
139. Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 23660 of 2021
Petitioner :- Raj Kuamr & Ors.
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru. Addl.Chief Secy. Basic Education & Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Shitla Prasad Tripathi,Deepti Singh,Vijay Bhan Pandey
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ran Vijay Singh
140. Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 23663 of 2021
Petitioner :- Shivangi Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru. Addl.Chief Secy. Basic Education & Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashutosh Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ran Vijay Singh
141. Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 23665 of 2021
Petitioner :- Km.Harshita Singh & Anr.
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru. Addl.Chief Secy. Basic Education & Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Pt. S. Chandra,Ravi Kant Mishra
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ran Vijay Singh
142. Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 23747 of 2021
Petitioner :- Pratibha Gupta & Ors.
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl.Chief Secy. Basic Education & Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajesh Kumar,Jitendra Bahadur,L.B.Singh Bhadauria,Onkar Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ran Vijay Singh
143. Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 23755 of 2021
Petitioner :- Subhash Chandra Pandey
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl.Chief Secy. Basic Education & Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Deepak Kumar Pandey,Alok Kumar Tripathi,Salil Tripathi
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ran Vijay Singh
144. Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 23859 of 2021
Petitioner :- Sanjira Chauhan & Ors.
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Education Lko. & Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Om Chandra Sahu,Sudhakar Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ran Vijay Singh
145. Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 23898 of 2021
Petitioner :- Anshuman Pandey And 21 Ors.
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Secy. Basic Edu. Lucknow And Anr.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Umesh Chandra Chaturvedi,Gaurav Rastogi,Piyush Kumar Giri,Ravindra Kumar Singh,Saurabh Tiwari
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
146. Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 24122 of 2021
Petitioner :- Jyoti Verma
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Edu. Lko. & Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Arun Kumar Verma,Ashutosh Diwedi
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ran Vijay Singh
Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.
1. These are a bunch of 147 writ petitions, where the petitioners, who are all candidates appearing in the Assistant Teachers Recruitment Examination, 2019, have made it common cause to assail the result of the selection and consequent appointment of the luckier amongst them on ground that the answer key published on 08.05.2020 is patently flawed. There is much variety to the manner and the extent these petitioners want the Court to scrutinize the recruitment examination, but in substance, all of them say that they have been evaluated on the basis of a flawed answer key that has led to an actionable aberration in the result. All the writ petitions, despite the variety and the extent of relief claimed, raise common questions of fact and law and are, therefore, being decided by means of this common judgment and orders. The writ petition preferred by Rishabh Mishra and others, being Service Single No.8056 of 2020, has been heard as the leading case along with all the other connected writ petitions and is being decided as such.
2. Heard Dr. Lalta Prasad Mishra along with Mr. Amit Kumar Bhadauria, Mr. Sudeep Seth, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Avdhesh Shukla, Mr. Onkar Singh, Mr. Jitendra Bahadur, Mr. Anash Sherwani holding brief of Mr. Amrendra Nath Tripathi, Mr. Alok Kr. Misra, Mr. I.M. Pandey Ist, Mr. Rudra Kumar Tiwari, Mr. Avinash Pandey, Mr. Ram Singh, Mr. Arun Kumar Verma, Mr. Rajeiu Kumar Tripathi, Mr. Farooqahmad, Mr. Raj Priya Srivastava, Mr. Srideep Chatterjee, Mr. Prakhar Misra, Mr. Rajeev Narayan Pandey, Mr. Deepak Singh, Mr. Arvind Kumar Tiwari, Mr. Suyesh Pradhan, Mr. Nitin Kumar Mishra, Mr. Arun Kumar Mishra, Mr. Dileep Kumar Tiwari, Mr. Rakesh Kumar Singh, Mr. Anil Kumar Maurya, Mr. Rajesh Kumar Pathak, Mr. Shitla Prasad Tripathi, Mr. Saurabh Shukla, Mr. Om Chandra Sahu, Mr. Piyush Kumar Giri, learned Counsel for the petitioners in different writ petitions. Mr. Raghvendra Singh, the learned Advocate General assisted by Mr. Ran Vijay Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has been heard on behalf of the State and Mr. Ajay Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the U.P. Basic Education Board in the leading case, has also been heard.
3. The State of Uttar Pradesh on 9th of November, 2017 amended the Uttar Pradesh Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 19811. The said amendment to the Rules was called the Uttar Pradesh Basic Education Board (Teachers) Service (Twentieth Amendment) Rules, 20172. By the Twentieth Amendment, changes were introduced to Rule 2(1) and Rule 8 of the Rules of 1981. The ''Assistant Teacher Recruitment Examination' was introduced vide clause (w), the 'Qualifying Marks of Assistant Teacher Recruitment Examination' were provided for vide clause (x) and the 'Guidelines of Assistant Teacher Recruitment Examination' were envisaged under clause (y). These clauses (w), (x) and (y) were added to Rule 2(1) of the Rules of 1981. Pursuant to the Twentieth Amendment, the Assistant Teacher Recruitment Examination, 2018 was held, where 68,500 posts were advertised. The selection and recruitment process ran its full course and ended on 05.10.2018 with the appointment of 41,556 selected candidates. There is no issue about that selection here.
4. The next process of selection under the Rules of 1981, as amended by the Twentieth Amendment, was initiated on 01.12.2018. On occasion, the State Government issued fresh guidelines carried in the Government Order of 1st December, 2018. The recruitment process that commenced in terms of the Government Order dated 1st December, 2018 is called Assistant Teacher Recruitment Examination, 20193. Under the Recruitment Examination of 2019, 69,000 posts of Assistant Teaches were advertised. It is this recruitment, that is subject matter of the present batch of writ petitions. It must be remarked here that the Recruitment Examination of 2019 has not landed in Court for the first time. It has had a very troubled course in the past too, with varying issues being raised in challenge to its validity.
5. On 05.12.2018, guidelines for the Recruitment Examination of 2019 were issued by the Government, acting on the permission granted by the State Government on 01.12.2018. The Secretary, Examination Regulatory Authority, U.P., Allahabad issued an advertisement, notifying the Recruitment Examination of 2019. The petitioners, all of whom assert to be eligible to stake their candidature for the post of an Assistant Teacher in the Recruitment Examination of 2019, applied and participated in the written examination, that was held on 06.01.2019. The cutoff marks for selection were declared on 07.01.2019, which seems to have invited the first spate of litigation. The provisional answer key was published on 8th January, 2019 and objections thereto were invited. 11th January, 2019 was the last date for lodging objections to the provisional answer key. On May the 8th, 2020, the final answer key was issued followed by declaration of results on 11th May, 2020.
6. On 13th of May, 2020, a notification was issued, declaring the dates for registration and counselling of the selected candidates. The writ petition, giving rise to the leading case, was filed on 18th of May, 2020 to be joined in the enterprise of challenge with another 24 writ petitions at the instance of single and multiple writ petitioners. These other writ petitions were Service Single Nos.8224 of 2020, 8225 of 2020 etc., making for a total of 25 petitions. The record of the leading case shows that on 20th May, 2020 a day's time was granted to respondent nos.1, 3 and 4 to file a short counter affidavit, dispensing with notice to respondent nos.5, 6 and 7 at that stage. This petition was directed to come up on 22.05.2020. On 22.05.2020 and 28.05.2020, some further orders were passed, requiring the respondents to file a counter affidavit, clarifying the dispute about the key answer to the questions that were under challenge. The reference to those questions, that are impugned, would figure later in this judgment. It would also figure later how the controversy about the validity of at least four questions has now shrunk to a mere one.
7. Nevertheless, a short counter affidavit dated 28th May, 2020 was filed on behalf of the State Council of Educational Research and Training, U.P., Lucknow through its Director and the Examination Regulatory Authority, U.P. through its Secretary. The leading case, along with the other 24, was taken up before this Court on 03.06.2020, when, by a very detailed interim order, a learned Single Judge of this Court stayed the notification dated 08.05.2020, carrying the final answer key relating to the Recruitment Examination of 2019. All proceedings pursuant to the notification dated 08.05.2020 were also ordered to be stayed till the next date of listing. The objections to the various key answers, that were put in by candidates pursuant to publication of the provisional answer key, were referred to a panel of experts. The respondents were directed to file the report received from the panel of experts before the Court on affidavit. It was ordered that the provisional answer key, along with objections thereto, be referred to a panel of experts to be appointed by the Secretary, University Grants Commission, New Delhi. There were detailed directions and a calendared schedule, according to which, the panel of experts were to be appointed by the U.G.C., for rendering their opinion and it being laid before this Court. Notice was also issued to respondent nos.5, 6 and 7 in the leading petition.
8. The interim order dated 03.06.2020 was challenged by the Examination Regulatory Authority and the other State respondents by means of Special Appeal nos.154 of 2020, 156 of 2020 and 157 of 2020. A Division Bench of this Court, vide order dated 12.06.2020, stayed the operation of the order dated 03.06.2020 passed in the leading case and the connected matters.
9. The petitioners in the leading case challenged the interim order passed by the Division Bench in Special Appeal no.154 of 2020 through Petition for Special Leave No.7884 of 2020 before the Supreme Court. Their Lordships, however, dismissed the Special Leave Petition with a request to the Division Bench to dispose of the pending appeals as early as possible and preferably, within a period of two months.
10. Special Appeal nos.154 of 2020, 156, 2020, 157 of 2020 and 160 of 2020 were taken up together by the Division Bench, with their Lordships of the Division Bench being of opinion that the Single Judge may be requested to decide the writ petitions on merits expeditiously. The Division Bench, therefore, directed that the Single Judge shall make an endeavour to consider and decide all the pending writ petitions on merits at an early date. It was also clarified that all pleas raised in the Special Appeals are left open, including the plea about impleadment of necessary parties. It was added as a word of clarification that this Court, while deciding the writ petitions, would not be influenced by the interim order dated 03.06.2020 as well as the interim order of the Division Bench dated 12.06.2020, passed in the Special Appeals. These orders, disposing of the Special Appeals, were passed by the Division Bench on 1st of February, 2021. It is in consequence of the orders of the Division Bench that these writ petitions have come up before this Court.
11. While all these developments took place before this Court at Lucknow, a batch of writ petitions was also filed at Allahabad mounting a challenge to the key answers under reference carried in the final answer key published on 08.05.2020. The batch of writ petitions, that were heard at Allahabad in Rohit Shukla and 110 others4, comprised other connected writ petitions. The petitions were dismissed by a learned Single Judge at Allahabad vide a judgment and order dated 07.05.2021. The judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 07.05.2021 in Rohit Shukla and others (supra) was challenged by the unsuccessful writ petitioners vide Special Appeal no.343 of 2021 along with a batch of 42 appeals. These appeals came to be disposed of by a common judgment and order dated 25.08.2021. Their Lordships of the Division Bench declined to interfere with the answer key vis-à-vis five of the six questions that were put in issue on appeal, numerically reducing the challenge that was laid before the learned Single Judge, where it was a figure of nine in the key. At the hearing of the appeal, the key answers to Question Nos.47, 48, 54, 106 and 111 were tested with reference to authoritative texts and material and held not to be so palpably wrong that may call for interference by the Court. All these key answers refer to Question Booklet Series 'A' and have corresponding varying numbers in Question Booklet Series 'B', 'C' and 'D', but with the same content. The Division Bench, nevertheless, sustained the challenge with reference to Question No.60 in the Booklet Series 'A', which bears a different number in Booklet Series 'B', 'C' and 'D'. So far as the answer carried in answer key to Question No.60 in Booklet Series 'A' is concerned, the Division Bench held the key answer to be wrongly selected. The learned Single Judge's judgment to that extent was modified in terms of orders that can be best expressed in the words of their Lordships of the Division Bench in Abhishek Srivastava and 14 others vs. State of U.P. and 2 others5. These directions read:
"As an outcome of the discussion aforesaid, we find reason to cause interference in the judgement of the learned Single Judge limited to Question No. 60 and not for in any other questions for which objections have been raised by the appellants.
It is stated that selections have already been finalized followed by appointments but merely for that reason, the candidates having a case in their favour cannot be deprived to get benefit. Keeping in mind that selections have already been completed followed by appointments, direction in these appeals would apply only to those candidates who have raised the issue by maintaining a writ by now and not to any other candidate. The benefit to the candidates therein also would be if they are short of one mark because the value of each question is of one mark.
The matter is not referred to the expert for its examination finding that answer to Question No.60 was not correctly selected. The issue could not even be contested by the respondents thus to avoid further delay in the matter, we direct the respondents to take a decision appropriately to award one mark to the litigants till date.
To avoid any complication, the non-appellants can give value of one mark to the litigants for Question No.60 which otherwise can be with deletion to increase the value of all the questions proportionately but then it may open a Pandora and this Court do not intend to disturb the appointments already made thus direction is kept limited to the writ petitioners. If with award of one mark to any of the litigants till date before Allahabad High Court, they find place in the merit, then the respondents would give them appointment, subject to satisfaction of other conditions, if any.
The exercise aforesaid would not effect in any manner the selection or appointments already made. The benefit would be given to the appellants and the writ petitioners, if they are short of one mark and not otherwise. If any of the litigant till date are short by two marks in the merit, they would not be entitled to any benefit of this judgment.
With the aforesaid direction, all the appeals are disposed of after causing interference in the impugned judgment limited to Question No. 60."
12. It must be remarked here that before this Court, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, in the multitude of writ petitions including the leading case, have assailed the answer key impugned, insofar as it relates to Question No.60 of Booklet Series ''A'. The said Question bears numbers 87, 115 and 143 in Booklet Series ''B', ''C' and ''D', respectively. Thus, challenge to the other answers in the answer key that was a figure of six before the Division Bench in Abhishek Srivastava (supra), is confined to Question No.60 alone.
13. It must also be recorded that in the writ petitions, challenge was raised to other questions as well, as would appear from a perusal of Paragraph No.19 of the writ, giving rise to the leading case. There, the key answers, with reference to Question nos.39, 70, 130 and 143 of Question Booklet Series ''D', have been assailed in Paragraph Nos.20, 21, 22 and 23. But at the hearing, as already said, the writ petitioners confined their submissions to the answer key vis-à-vis Question No.60 of the Question Booklet Series ''A' (corresponding to Question Nos.87, 115 and 143 in Question Booklet Series ''B', ''C' and ''D', respectively). Now, Question No.60 in Question Booklet Series ''A' reads:
"60."Educational administration provides appropriate education to appropriate student by appropriate teacher by which they can able to become the best by using available maximum resources." This definition is given by
(1) S.N. Mukherjee
(2) Cambell
(3) Welfare Grahya
(4) Dr. Atmanand Mishra"
14. The impugned answer key, relating to Question No.60, a copy of which finds place, amongst others, as Annexure no.2 in Service Single No.8071 of 2020, shows the correct option to be: "(3)". The third option in the Question Booklet Series ''A' is ''Welfare Grahya', the other options being: (1) S.N. Mukherjee; (2) Cambell; and (4) Dr. Atmanand Mishra. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners, in all these cases, is that all the options in the impugned answer key to Question No.60 of Question Booklet Series ''A' and the corresponding questions in the other Question Booklet Series, where the relative answer key carry the same option, are all patently wrong. It is argued that the suggested option ''Welfare Grahya' is so manifestly wrong, that it cannot be a possible option.
15. There is a reference to a Treatise, called ''Educational Administration and Management' by I.S. Sindhu, a xerox copy of which (relevant part) is annexed as Annexure no.10 to Service Single No.8071 of 2020, where the subject matter of Question No.60 in Question Booklet Series ''A' finds place at Page No.105 of the paper book of this petition. The quote is credited to the original idea, authorship and words of "Graham Balfour". Likewise, in the leading case, in Question Booklet Series ''D', the corresponding number of Question No.60 of Question Booklet Series ''A' is Question No.143. The impugned answer key, relative to Question Booklet Series ''D', is Annexure no.1 to this petition and the answer to Question No.143 of this series shown is Option No.3. The said option is the same as the one given out as the correct answer in the impugned answer key relating to Question Booklet Series ''A', where it figures as Question No.60. This answer is common to the other two Question Booklet Series ''B' and ''C'.
16. The issue, whether the impugned key answer to Question No.60 is without doubt and palpably a wrong answer, so as to be amenable to the Court's interference, fell directly for consideration of the Division Bench in Abhishek Srivastava (supra). Their Lordships of the Division Bench in Abhishek Srivastava held:
"Now comes Question No. 60 and is quoted hereunder:
"60. Educational administration provides appropriate education to appropriate student by appropriate teacher by which they can able to become the best by using available maximum resources" This definition is given by;
(1) S.N. Mukherjee
(2) Carnbell
(3) Welfare Grahya
(4) Dr. Atmanand Mishra"
The answer selected by the respondents is option no.3 whereas none of the answer is correct, according to the appellants. The material used by the expert and produced even by the respondents shows that name of the author is not correctly mentioned. The name of the author is "Graham Balfour" whereas it is mentioned as "Welfare Grahya". In view of the aforesaid, learned counsel for the appellants submit that option No.3 was wrongly selected by the respondents to be the correct answer. The material relied by the appellants is the Educational Administration and Health Education. Relevant part of the document is quoted hereunder:
"Educational administration is to enable the right pupils to receive the right education from the right teachers, at a cost within the means of the state under conditions which will enable the pupils best to profit by their training-Graham Belfour"
It is also Educational Administration handbook by Graham Balfour and the same is also quoted hereunder:
"Graham Balfour
Educational Administration
Two Lectures Delivered Before the University of Birmingham in February, 1921"
Learned counsel for the non-appellant could not contest the issue. It is submitted that the correct answer to Question No. 60 is ''Graham Balfour' and answer No. 3 is close to the aforesaid, thus, taken it to be the correct answer. We find that correct name of the author has not been given in any of the option. In those circumstances, respondents could not have taken option No.3 to be the correct answer when the name of the author is "Graham Balfour" and not "Welfare Grahya".
In view of the aforesaid, we find substance in the argument of learned counsel for the appellants as otherwise it could not be contested by the non-appellant looking to the name given in option No.3, different than the name exist in the books even referred by the expert. During the course of argument also, the material relied by the respondents shows the correct name to be "Graham Balfour" whereas the option taken by the respondents is "Welfare Grahya". The selection of option No.3 suffers from the error on the fact of it thus, could not be contested by the non-appellant and, therefore, we cause interference in the judgment of the learned Single Judge in regard to answer to Question No.60. The appropriate direction would be given at the end of the judgment in reference to Question No.60."
17. It is submitted by the learned Advocate General that the answer key in relation to Question No.60 of Question Booklet Series ''A' (and the corresponding numbers in other Question Booklet Series) has not been demonstrated to be palpably wrong. He says that if it is a case of doubt about the answer key being correct or incorrect, the doubt has to be held in favour of the Examination Authority. In support of this submission, much reliance has been placed by the learned Advocate General on the decision of the Supreme Court in Ran Vijay Singh and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others6. In Ran Vijay Singh, it has been held:
"30. The law on the subject is therefore, quite clear and we only propose to highlight a few significant conclusions. They are:
30.1. If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination permits the re-evaluation of an answer sheet or scrutiny of an answer sheet as a matter of right, then the authority conducting the examination may permit it;
30.2. If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination does not permit re-evaluation or scrutiny of an answer sheet (as distinct from prohibiting it) then the court may permit re-evaluation or scrutiny only if it is demonstrated very clearly, without any "inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalisation" and only in rare or exceptional cases that a material error has been committed;
30.3. The court should not at all re-evaluate or scrutinise the answer sheets of a candidate--it has no expertise in the matter and academic matters are best left to academics;
30.4. The court should presume the correctness of the key answers and proceed on that assumption; and
30.5. In the event of a doubt, the benefit should go to the examination authority rather than to the candidate."
18. It is submitted on the merits of the key answer to Question No.60 that it is not palpably wrong. Dilating on the reasoning why the impugned answer key is not palpably wrong vis-à-vis Question No.60 of Question Booklet Series ''A' (including Question Booklet Series ''B', ''C' and ''D'), it is urged that in English culture, the surname is often written first. The learned Advocate General says that ''Welfare Grahya' is in fact the same as ''Graham Balfour'. It is also argued that it is a test of the candidates' imagination, who were expected to reckon the correct option in the impugned answer key, that had resemblance to the correct answer.
19. This Court must remark that the submissions of the learned Advocate General asking this Court to accept ''Welfare Grahya' as some kind of an understandable language mutant of ''Graham Balfour', is incorrect to its face. For one, it is a proper noun and it is well-known that there are no synonyms of a proper noun, unless the case is that a particular proper noun in another language has a known and reputed equivalent. For instance, Maharaja Puru in times of Alexander was called by Greeks as Porus. If there were an answer where Puru and Porus were substituted as one for the other as the correct answer to a question about history or related subject, may be the logic that the learned Advocate General puts forth would apply. There is not the slightest evidence to suggest that ''Welfare Grahya' is any kind of a name given to ''Graham Balfour' in India. This is not even the case that the State urges. The learned Advocate General wants the candidates to draw heavily on their imagination and conjecture, going by the phonetics of it that ''Welfare Grahya' is the same thing as ''Graham Balfour'. In our clear opinion, this is not a case where the Expert Committee or any expert for that matter, would have the last say. The impugned answer that figures in the answer key, in our considered opinion, is so palpably wrong that it is the law that would have the last say; not the expert.
20. The issue whether ''Graham Balfour' and ''Welfare Grahya' are one and the same thing, and ''Welfare Grahya' could be the right answer, has already been gone into and decided by the Division Bench in Abhishek Srivastava, to which allusion has been made hereinbefore. Their Lordships of the Division Bench have relied on source material being a Treatise, called ''Educational Administration and Management', a Handbook by ''Graham Balfour' to conclude that the correct answer was ''Graham Balfour' and not ''Welfare Grahya'. The quote, that is subject matter of Question No.60, is credited to ''Graham Balfour' and the Division Bench has held that the correct name of the author has not been given in any of the four options carried in the answer key relative to Question No.60 in Question Booklet Series 'A' (including the corresponding question numbers in the other Question Booklet Series). Thus, in the considered opinion of this Court, the answer to Question No.60 of Question Booklet Series ''A' (corresponding to other question numbers in different Question Booklet Series) cannot be regarded as correct. The issue stands concluded by the decision of the Division Bench in Abhishek Srivastava (supra).
21. The learned Counsel for the petitioners, therefore, seek extension of the same benefit to the petitioners as that given to the writ petitioners, who were before the Court in Abhishek Srivastava. It is argued by those petitioners, who had instituted the writ petitions before the decision of the Division Bench in Abhishek Srivastava, that is to say, before 25.08.2021 that they are entitled to the benefit of the said decision. The other petitioners, who instituted their writ petitions after the decision in Abhishek Srivastava, also contend that they are entitled to the benefit of the said judgment.
22. The learned Advocate General has questioned the petitioners' claim on the foot of the submission that those petitioners, who did not file objections to the answer key within time allowed after publication of the provisional answer key, are not entitled to relief. It is submitted that those candidates-turned-petitioners, who did not bother to submit their objections against the provisional answer key after declaration of that key by the Authorities, do not have a right to challenge the validity of the impugned answer key. It is submitted that those petitioners, who have instituted writ petitions without submitting their objections to the provisional answer key, are no more than fence sitters, who are not vigilant about their rights. The learned Advocate General has drawn inspiration from the maxim "lex vigil lantibus non dor meintibus subvemit", which means that the law helps the vigilant and not those persons, who sleep over their rights. He has, in this connection, referred to the guidance of the Supreme Court in Malcom Lawrence Cecil D'Souza v. Union of India and others7.
23. It has also been urged by the learned Advocate General that the issue of being vigilant about one's rights lies at the core of a party's right to seek relief under the law in general and, in particular, in case of public employment. It is urged that the petitioners cannot capitalize on the benefit of a judgment rendered in the case of other candidates, who have toiled hard to enforce their rights over a long period of time. The learned Advocate General has further buttressed his submissions on the strength of the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in U.P. Jal Nigam and another v. Jaswant Singh and another8. It is urged that acquiescence has not been approved on the part of a candidate who was not vigilant about his rights at an earlier stage, but claims relief after a judgment is passed in favour of some others, similarly circumstanced, who have run from pillar to post to secure their rights.
24. The question about being vigilant for one's right, particularly where administrative decisions are taken, adversely affecting rights of public servants, that remain unchallenged for long, engaged the attention of the Supreme Court in the context of a seniority dispute in Malcom Lawrence Cecil D'Souza (supra), a decision on which the learned Advocate General has relied. It was a case, where the issue of inter se seniority between the officers of the Income Tax Department was agitated by one of them after a lapse of 14 or 15 years. It was in that context that it was observed in Malcom Lawrence Cecil D'Souza:
"8. The matter can also be looked at from another angle. The seniority of the petitioner qua Respondents 4 to 26 was determined as long ago as 1956 in accordance with 1952 Rules. The said seniority was reiterated in the seniority list issued in 1958. The present writ petition was filed in 1971. The petitioner, in our opinion, cannot be allowed to challenge the seniority list after lapse of so many years. The fact that a seniority list was issued in 1971. in pursuance of the decision of this Court in Karnik case would not clothe the petitioner with a fresh right to challenge the fixation of his seniority qua Respondents 4 to 26 as the seniority list of 1971 merely reflected the seniority of the petitioner qua those respondents as already determined in 1956. Satisfactory service conditions postulate that there should be no sense of uncertainty amongst public servants because of stale claims made after lapse of 14 or 15 years. It is essential that anyone who feels aggrieved with an administrative decision affecting one seniority should act with due diligence and promptitude and not sleep over the matter. No satisfactory explanation has been furnished by the petitioner before us for the inordinate delay in approaching the Court. It is no doubt true that he made a representation against the seniority list issued in 1956 and 1958 but that representation was rejected in 1961. No cogent ground has been shown as to why the petitioner became quiescent and took no diligent steps to obtain redress."
25. The other decision, on which the learned Advocate General has relied, is also relevant to the issue, and that is, U.P. Jal Nigam and another v. Jaswant Singh (supra). In U.P. Jal Nigam and another v. Jaswant Singh, the issue arose in the context of age of retirement of employees of the U.P. Jal Nigam. Some of the employees of the U.P. Jal Nigam had agitated their rights to continue in service up to the age of 60 years instead of superannuating at 58, claiming parity with State Government Employees, whose Service Rules had been amended to provide 60 years as the age of superannuation. Many of the employees had continued on the strength of interim orders up to the age of 60.
26. In Harwindra Kumar v. Chief Engineer, Karmik and others9, it was finally held by the Supreme Court that employees of the U.P. Jal Nigam would be governed by the same regulations relating to superannuation as Government servants of the State and they too would retire at the age of 60 years. In consequence of the said decision, a spate of writ petitions were filed by employees, who had retired at the age of 58 years long back, asking for extension of the benefit of the judgment in Harwindra Kumar. The High Court disposed of the writ petitions granting benefit of the decision in Harwindra Kumar to the petitioners, who had already retired at the age of 58 years from the Jal Nigam Service. It was in that context that their Lordships of the Supreme Court allowed the Appeal preferred by the Jal Nigam by Special Leave and held in U.P. Jal Nigam and another v. Jaswant Singh thus:
"9. Similarly in Jagdish Lal v. State of Haryana [(1997) 6 SCC 538 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 1550] this Court reaffirmed the rule if a person chose to sit over the matter and then woke up after the decision of the court, then such person cannot stand to benefit. In that case it was observed as follows: (SCC p. 542)
"The delay disentitles a party to discretionary relief under Article 226 or Article 32 of the Constitution. The appellants kept sleeping over their rights for long and woke up when they had the impetus from Virpal Singh Chauhan case [Union of India v. Virpal Singh Chauhan, (1995) 6 SCC 684 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 1 : (1995) 31 ATC 813] . The appellants' desperate attempt to redo the seniority is not amenable to judicial review at this belated stage."
10. In the case of Union of India v. C.K. Dharagupta, (1997) 3 SCC 395 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 821, it was observed as follows:
"9. We, however, clarify that in view of our finding that the judgment of the Tribunal in R.P. Joshi v. Union of India, OA No. 497 of 1986 decided on 17-3-1987 gives relief only to Joshi, the benefit of the said judgment of the Tribunal cannot be extended to any other person. The respondent C.K. Dharagupta (since retired) is seeking benefit of Joshi case. In view of our finding that the benefit of the judgment of the Tribunal dated 17-3-1987 could only be given to Joshi and nobody else, even Dharagupta is not entitled to any relief.
11. In Govt. of W.B. v. Tarun K. Roy [(2004) 1 SCC 347 : 2004 SCC (L&S) 225] their Lordships considered delay as serious factor and have not granted relief. Therein it was observed as follows: (SCC pp. 359-60, para 34)
"34. The respondents furthermore are not even entitled to any relief on the ground of gross delay and laches on their part in filing the writ petition. The first two writ petitions were filed in the year 1976 wherein the respondents herein approached the High Court in 1992. In between 1976 and 1992 not only two writ petitions had been decided, but one way or the other, even the matter had been considered by this Court in Debdas Kumar [State of W.B. v. Debdas Kumar, 1991 Supp (1) SCC 138 : 1991 SCC (L&S) 841 : (1991) 17 ATC 261] . The plea of delay, which Mr Krishnamani states, should be a ground for denying the relief to the other persons similarly situated would operate against the respondents. Furthermore, the other employees not being before this Court although they are ventilating their grievances before appropriate courts of law, no order should be passed which would prejudice their cause. In such a situation, we are not prepared to make any observation only for the purpose of grant of some relief to the respondents to which they are not legally entitled to so as to deprive others therefrom who may be found to be entitled thereto by a court of law."
12. The statement of law has also been summarised in Halsbury's Laws of England, para 911, p. 395 as follows:
"In determining whether there has been such delay as to amount to laches, the chief points to be considered are:
(i) acquiescence on the claimant's part; and
(ii) any change of position that has occurred on the defendant's part.
Acquiescence in this sense does not mean standing by while the violation of a right is in progress, but assent after the violation has been completed and the claimant has become aware of it. It is unjust to give the claimant a remedy where, by his conduct, he has done that which might fairly be regarded as equivalent to a waiver of it; or where by his conduct and neglect, though not waiving the remedy, he has put the other party in a position in which it would not be reasonable to place him if the remedy were afterwards to be asserted. In such cases lapse of time and delay are most material. Upon these considerations rests the doctrine of laches."
13. In view of the statement of law as summarised above, the respondents are guilty since the respondents have acquiesced in accepting the retirement and did not challenge the same in time. If they would have been vigilant enough, they could have filed writ petitions as others did in the matter. Therefore, whenever it appears that the claimants lost time or whiled it away and did not rise to the occasion in time for filing the writ petitions, then in such cases, the court should be very slow in granting the relief to the incumbent. Secondly, it has also to be taken into consideration the question of acquiescence or waiver on the part of the incumbent whether other parties are going to be prejudiced if the relief is granted. In the present case, if the respondents would have challenged their retirement being violative of the provisions of the Act, perhaps the Nigam could have taken appropriate steps to raise funds so as to meet the liability but by not asserting their rights the respondents have allowed time to pass and after a lapse of couple of years, they have filed writ petitions claiming the benefit for two years. That will definitely require the Nigam to raise funds which is going to have serious financial repercussions on the financial management of the Nigam. Why should the court come to the rescue of such persons when they themselves are guilty of waiver and acquiescence?
16. Therefore, in case at this belated stage if similar relief is to be given to the persons who have not approached the court that will unnecessarily overburden the Nigam and the Nigam will completely collapse with the liability of payment to these persons in terms of two years' salary and increased benefit of pension and other consequential benefits. Therefore, we are not inclined to grant any relief to the persons who have approached the court after their retirement. Only those persons who have filed the writ petitions when they were in service or who have obtained interim order for their retirement, those persons should be allowed to stand to benefit and not others. We have been given a chart of those nine persons, who filed writ petitions and obtained stay and are continuing in service. They are as follows:
1. Shri Bhawani Sewak Shukla
2. Shri Vijay Bahadur Rai
3. Shri Girija Shanker
4. Shri Yogendra Prakash Kulshresht
5. Shri Vinod Kumar Bansal
6. Shri Pradumn Prashad Mishra
7. Shri Banke Bihari Pandey
8. Shri Yashwant Singh
9. Shri Chandra Shekhar
And the following persons filed writ petitions before retirement but no stay order was granted:
1. Shri Gopal Singh Dangwal(WP No. 35384 of 2005 vide
order dated 5-5-2005)
2. Shri R.R. Gautam (WP No. 45495 of 2005 vide
order dated 15-6-2005)
17. The benefits shall only be confined to abovementioned persons who have filed writ petitions before their retirement or they have obtained interim order before their retirement. The appeals filed against these persons by the Nigam shall fail and the same are dismissed. Rest of the appeals are allowed and orders passed by the High Court are set aside. There would be no order as to costs."
27. No doubt, both the decisions in Malcom Lawrence Cecil D'Souza and U.P. Jal Nigam and another v. Jaswant Singh are very relevant to the issue, but this Court is afraid that the principle there may not apply the same way to all the petitioners in this batch of writ petitions. There is a group of writ petitions filed by one or more petitioners, numbering 105 that were filed before 25.08.2021. These petitions are grouped together and marked as ''Group-A'. These are:
GROUP-A
1. SERVICE SINGLE No. - 8056 of 2020
2. SERVICE SINGLE No. - 8057 of 2020
3. SERVICE SINGLE No. - 8062 of 2020
4. SERVICE SINGLE No. - 8063 of 2020
5. SERVICE SINGLE No. - 8071 of 2020
6. SERVICE SINGLE No. - 8085 of 2020
7. SERVICE SINGLE No. - 8095 of 2020
8. SERVICE SINGLE No. - 8096 of 2020
9. SERVICE SINGLE No. - 8099 of 2020
10. SERVICE SINGLE No. - 8101 of 2020
11. MISC. SINGLE No. - 8125 of 2020
12. SERVICE SINGLE No. - 8128 of 2020
13. SERVICE SINGLE No. - 8131 of 2020
14. SERVICE SINGLE No. - 8145 of 2020
15. SERVICE SINGLE No. - 8146 of 2020
16. SERVICE SINGLE No. - 8151 of 2020
17. SERVICE SINGLE No. - 8189 of 2020
18. SERVICE SINGLE No. - 8190 of 2020
19. SERVICE SINGLE No. - 8191 of 2020
20. SERVICE SINGLE No. - 8193 of 2020
21. SERVICE SINGLE No. - 8198 of 2020
22. SERVICE SINGLE No. - 8200 of 2020
23. SERVICE SINGLE No. - 8205 of 2020
24. SERVICE SINGLE No. - 8225 of 2020
25. SERVICE SINGLE No. - 8233 of 2020
26. SERVICE SINGLE No. - 8236 of 2020
27. SERVICE SINGLE No. - 8241 of 2020
28. SERVICE SINGLE No. - 8256 of 2020
29. SERVICE SINGLE No. - 8258 of 2020
30. SERVICE SINGLE No. - 8279 of 2020
31. SERVICE SINGLE No. - 8280 of 2020
32. SERVICE SINGLE No. - 8318 of 2020
33. SERVICE SINGLE No. - 8322 of 2020
34. SERVICE SINGLE No. - 8325 of 2020
35. SERVICE SINGLE No. - 8338 of 2020
36. SERVICE SINGLE No. - 8377 of 2020
37. SERVICE SINGLE No. - 8385 of 2020
38. SERVICE SINGLE No. - 8386 of 2020
39. SERVICE SINGLE No. - 8388 of 2020
40. SERVICE SINGLE No. - 8391 of 2020
41. SERVICE SINGLE No. - 8396 of 2020
42. SERVICE SINGLE No. - 8403 of 2020
43. SERVICE SINGLE No. - 8404 of 2020
44. SERVICE SINGLE No. - 8409 of 2020
45. SERVICE SINGLE No. - 8423 of 2020
46. SERVICE SINGLE No. - 8448 of 2020
47. SERVICE SINGLE No. - 8451 of 2020
48. SERVICE SINGLE No. - 8452 of 2020
49. SERVICE SINGLE No. - 8453 of 2020
50. SERVICE SINGLE No. - 8454 of 2020
51. SERVICE SINGLE No. - 8456 of 2020
52. SERVICE SINGLE No. - 8498 of 2020
53. SERVICE SINGLE No. - 8658 of 2020
54. SERVICE SINGLE No. - 8659 of 2020
55. SERVICE SINGLE No. - 8725 of 2020
56. SERVICE SINGLE No. - 8836 of 2020
57. SERVICE SINGLE No. - 8866 of 2020
58. SERVICE SINGLE No. - 8908 of 2020
59. SERVICE SINGLE No. - 8989 of 2020
60. SERVICE SINGLE No. - 9037 of 2020
61. SERVICE SINGLE No. - 9121 of 2020
62. SERVICE SINGLE No. - 9655 of 2020
63. SERVICE SINGLE No. - 10426 of 2020
64. SERVICE SINGLE No. - 10431 of 2020
65. SERVICE SINGLE No. - 10972 of 2020
66. SERVICE SINGLE No. - 11334 of 2020
67. SERVICE SINGLE No. - 11467 of 2020
68. SERVICE SINGLE No. - 14177 of 2020
69. SERVICE SINGLE No. - 14350 of 2020
70. SERVICE SINGLE No. - 19893 of 2020
71. SERVICE SINGLE No. - 21886 of 2020
72. SERVICE SINGLE No. - 22803 of 2020
73. SERVICE SINGLE No. - 23359 of 2020
74. SERVICE SINGLE No. - 24800 of 2020
75. SERVICE SINGLE No. - 24801 of 2020
76. SERVICE SINGLE No. - 24824 of 2020
77. SERVICE SINGLE No. - 24826 of 2020
78. SERVICE SINGLE No. - 24827 of 2020
79. SERVICE SINGLE No. - 24828 of 2020
80. SERVICE SINGLE No. - 24837 of 2020
81. SERVICE SINGLE No. - 671 of 2021
82. SERVICE SINGLE No. - 1847 of 2021
83. SERVICE SINGLE No. - 2675 of 2021
84. SERVICE SINGLE No. - 2856 of 2021
85. SERVICE SINGLE No. - 3188 of 2021
86. SERVICE SINGLE No. - 3216 of 2021
87. SERVICE SINGLE No. - 4016 of 2021
88. SERVICE SINGLE No. - 4223 of 2021
89. SERVICE SINGLE No. - 4290 of 2021
90. SERVICE SINGLE No. - 4371 of 2021
91. SERVICE SINGLE No. - 4443 of 2021
92. SERVICE SINGLE No. - 4446 of 2021
93. SERVICE SINGLE No. - 4528 of 2021
94. SERVICE SINGLE No. - 4625 of 2021
95. SERVICE SINGLE No. - 4665 of 2021
96. SERVICE SINGLE No. - 4795 of 2021
97. SERVICE SINGLE No. - 4931 of 2021
98. SERVICE SINGLE No. - 5223 of 2021
99. SERVICE SINGLE No. - 5553 of 2021
100. SERVICE SINGLE No. - 6769 of 2021
101. SERVICE SINGLE No. - 6843 of 2021
102. SERVICE SINGLE No. - 9552 of 2021
103. SERVICE SINGLE No. - 12777 of 2021
104. SERVICE SINGLE No. - 16713 of 2021
28. These petitions were clearly pending on the date the decision in Abhishek Srivastava was rendered. About these petitioners, it cannot be said that they are fence sitters or those who wish to reap the benefits of a judgment passed by the Court about their rights that they never agitated earlier. It is just that these petitioners petitioned the Bench of this Court at Lucknow whereas another set of them, similarly circumstanced, petitioned this Court at Allahabad. Those who approached the High Court at Allahabad suffered a wholesome rejection of their claim by the learned Single Judge there, but on appeal, have been granted relief in terms of the decision in Abhishek Srivastava. The petitioners in Group-A were similarly agitating their rights before this Court at Lucknow and met with relative success before the learned Single Judge in terms of an interim order of 3rd June, 2020. It is another matter that the interim order was set aside in Appeal by the Division Bench. Many of the petitioners here went up against the interim order passed by the Division Bench in the Special Appeals to the Supreme Court, but failed there. This shows that most of the petitioners in Group-A were vigilant about their rights and went about the process of enforcing them. They cannot be called as fence sitters or the proverbial Rip Van Winkles.
29. The other is a group of writ petitions, where too, there are a number of petitioners. They have instituted writ petitions after 25.08.2021. They are grouped together and marked as ''Group-B'. These are:
GROUP-B
1. SERVICE SINGLE No. - 20791 of 2021
2. SERVICE SINGLE No. - 21817 of 2021
3. SERVICE SINGLE No. - 22143 of 2021
4. SERVICE SINGLE No. - 22145 of 2021
5. SERVICE SINGLE No. - 22172 of 2021
6. SERVICE SINGLE No. - 22501 of 2021
7. SERVICE SINGLE No. - 22503 of 2021
8. SERVICE SINGLE No. - 22507 of 2021
9. SERVICE SINGLE No. - 22519 of 2021
10. SERVICE SINGLE No. - 22659 of 2021
11. SERVICE SINGLE No. - 22719 of 2021
12. SERVICE SINGLE No. - 22760 of 2021
13. SERVICE SINGLE No. - 22801 of 2021
14. SERVICE SINGLE No. - 22819 of 2021
15. SERVICE SINGLE No. - 22820 of 2021
16. SERVICE SINGLE No. - 22864 of 2021
17. SERVICE SINGLE No. - 22891 of 2021
18. SERVICE SINGLE No. - 22892 of 2021
19. SERVICE SINGLE No. - 22909 of 2021
20. SERVICE SINGLE No. - 22919 of 2021
21. SERVICE SINGLE No. - 23042 of 2021
22. SERVICE SINGLE No. - 23128 of 2021
23. SERVICE SINGLE No. - 23153 of 2021
24. SERVICE SINGLE No. - 23182 of 2021
25. SERVICE SINGLE No. - 23192 of 2021
26. SERVICE SINGLE No. - 23303 of 2021
27. SERVICE SINGLE No. - 23395 of 2021
28. SERVICE SINGLE No. - 23435 of 2021
29. SERVICE SINGLE No. - 23481 of 2021
30. SERVICE SINGLE No. - 23494 of 2021
31. SERVICE SINGLE No. - 23538 of 2021
32. SERVICE SINGLE No. - 23563 of 2021
33. SERVICE SINGLE No. - 23621 of 2021
34. SERVICE SINGLE No. - 23627 of 2021
35. SERVICE SINGLE No. - 23630 of 2021
36. SERVICE SINGLE No. - 23660 of 2021
37. SERVICE SINGLE No. - 23663 of 2021
38. SERVICE SINGLE No. - 23665 of 2021
39. SERVICE SINGLE No. - 23747 of 2021
40. SERVICE SINGLE No. - 23755 of 2021
41. SERVICE SINGLE No. - 23859 of 2021
42. SERVICE SINGLE No. - 23898 of 2021
43. SERVICE SINGLE No. - 24122 of 2021
About these petitioners, it may legitimately be said that they seek to reap the benefit of the decision in Abhishek Srivastava.
30. In our opinion, the principles in Malcom Lawrence Cecil D'Souza and U.P. Jal Nigam and another v. Jaswant Singh would apply to disentitle the petitioners in Group-B to relief. However, those principles would not apply to the petitioners in Group-A. Thus, the submission of the learned Advocate General, to the extent it relates to the petitioners in Group-A, cannot be accepted, but for those in Group-B, it is sustainable.
31. At this stage, Mr. Onkar Singh and other learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, falling in Group-B of the writ petitions, submitted that they could not approach this Court earlier due to the Covid-19 pandemic. They instituted their writ petitions after the judgment in Abhishek Srivastava. It is urged that the facts, rights and entitlement to relief for the petitioners in the writ petitions marked as Group-B are identical to those in Group-A. It is emphasized that while entertaining the writ petitions, this Court granted time to the respondent-State to file a counter affidavit, but the State have not come up with a counter affidavit in the writ petitions that were instituted after 25.08.2021, that is to say, those placed in Group-B. The petitioners' assertions have not been controverted by the respondents.
32. Quite apart, the attention of this Court has been drawn on behalf of all the writ petitioners, whose cases fall in Group-B to the order of the Supreme Court in Misc. Application No.665 of 2021 in SMW(C) No. 3 of 2020, in re Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, where their Lordships vide order dated 23.03.2020, extended the period of limitation from 15.03.2020 until further orders. By a subsequent order, considering the normalcy restored with shrinking Covid-19 cases, it was directed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court that the period from 15.03.2020 till 14.03.2021 shall stand excluded from the period of limitation. Thereafter, on 27.04.2021, the order dated 23.03.2020 was restored and extended until further orders. By a subsequent order dated 23.09.2021, the limitation period from 15.03.2020 to 02.10.2021 was directed to be ignored. Drawing inspiration from the aforesaid directions, it is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the prevailing conditions were very extraordinary. They submit that the Division Bench in Abhishek Srivastava did not view the rights of the petitioners, who filed or would file after 25.08.2021 from this vantage at all. It is also urged that once one question has been judicially pronounced to be wrong, its benefit should go all candidates, who challenge the same, without fixing any cutoff date. It is also urged that this is particularly so because all the petitions are being heard simultaneously, irrespective of the date of institution.
33. Learned Counsel for the petitioners in this group of writ petitions say that if one mark is awarded to all the petitioners, some of them, who are short of one mark alone, would qualify the Recruitment Examination of 2019. It is also argued that the purity of recruitment examinations to public employment has to be strictly maintained. Thus, not awarding one mark to all the petitioners would result in selection of the less meritorious over much better candidates. It is also the petitioners' contention that they are not liable to suffer for the wrong committed in the examination process or the examination system. There is no way that the right may be denied to a petitioning candidate for one extra mark that he would be entitled to, but for the fact that the writ petition was instituted after the decision in Abhishek Srivastava. This contention has been vehemently opposed on behalf of the State by the learned Advocate General.
34. So far as the effect of delay in approaching the Court for relief in matters of public service and employment is concerned, the decisions in Malcom Lawrence Cecil D'Souza (supra) and U.P. Jal Nigam and another v. Jaswant Singh (supra) are eloquent about the principle that acquiescence is a factor that definitely destructs the right to relief, that may otherwise be a person's substantive entitlement. But the question is : Are the petitioners in the group of petitions marked 'B' indeed guilty of acquiescence? This Court has remarked earlier in the judgment that they are, and for that reason, put them in the disentitled group. There submission, however, deserves some further consideration.
35. The petitioners lastly urge that the unusual conditions created by the Covid-19 pandemic ought to be considered as a factor that places the normal rules of human conduct, particularly, time for enforcement of rights and obligations, in a mode of suspension. The extraordinary circumstances generated by the Covid-19 pandemic, no doubt, have led their Lordships of the Supreme Court to extend the statutory period of limitation for institution of legal proceedings, but would that work to make a difference for the petitioners in the writ petitions marked as Group-B? For one, there is no pleading to the effect that the petitioners in the group of petitions marked 'B' were prevented from approaching the Court prior to 25.08.2021, on account of some specific or particular events affecting them or their family members caused by the Covid-19 pandemic. It is just that, that after the judgment in Abhishek Srivastava, the petitioners in the group of petitions marked 'B' moved this Court for relief, expecting to secure relief fortuitously.
36. So far as the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic is concerned, it was common to all the candidates who have petitioned this Court, including those who filed much before 25.08.2021 and find place in the writ petitions marked 'A'. The distinction between them appears to be that the petitioners in the writ petitions in Group-A petitioned the Court in the earnest endeavour to agitate and enforce their rights, whereas those in Group-B appear to be gain-seekers by windfall, post decision in Abhishek Srivastava. Moreover, the Division Bench in Abhishek Srivastava has confined relief to those petitioners who were before the Court by that date, in order to obviate a widespread impact on the recruitment process. There is no reason for this Court to disturb the recruitment process relating to the Recruitment Examination of 2019 any more than that is imperative in consequence of the judgment of the Division Bench in Abhishek Srivastava. Therefore, despite the points that have been canvassed on behalf of the writ petitioners, whose cases fall in the group of petitions marked 'B', their claim cannot be accepted.
37. The other submissions of the learned Advocate General that some of the petitioners have not objected to the provisional answer key, which disentitles them to relief before this Court, is also a proposition not worth acceptance. The Division Bench in Abhishek Srivastava did not go into that distinction about rights of the writ petitioners there, and there is no reason for us to carve out a disentitling sub-category for the few who have not objected before the Authorities against provisional answer key. The writ petitioners in Group-A have promptly agitated their rights and merely because some of them have not objected to the provisional answer key, would not work as an infallible estoppel to disentitle them to relief before this Court. This is particularly so as the Division Bench at Allahabad has found all candidates, who had instituted their writ petitions before 25.08.2021, entitled to limited relief, without disturbing the rights of the selected candidates. The petitioners in Group-A are, in no way, different from the writ petitioners before the Division Bench in Abhishek Srivastava. There is no reason for us, therefore, to accept the learned Advocate General's contention in this regard.
38. Quite apart from the limited relief that the petitioners in the writ petitions marked as Group-A would be entitled to, the learned Advocate General has been at pains to demonstrate that none of the writ petitions are maintainable on another score. He questions the maintainability of the writ petitions on account of non-impleadment of necessary and proper parties. He submits that all selected candidates are required to be impleaded as parties and put under notice. He has relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Km. Rashmi Mishra v. M.P. Public Service Commission and others10 and Ranjan Kumar and others v. State of Bihar and others11. In Rashmi Mishra, it was held:
"13. It is not in dispute that all the 17 selected candidates were not impleaded as parties. Respondents 3 and 4, although, purported to have been impleaded as parties, the same, as noticed hereinbefore, was done on a different premise. Allegations of favouritism against them having been made, indisputably they were necessary parties. In the writ petition, although, the appellant contended that they were being impleaded in their representative capacity, admittedly no step had been taken in terms of Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure or the principles analogous thereto.
15. In the aforementioned situation, all the seventeen selected candidates were necessary parties in the writ petition. The number of selected candidates was not large. There was no difficulty for the appellant to implead them as parties in the said proceeding. The result of the writ petition could have affected the appointees. They were, thus, necessary and/or in any event proper parties.
16. In Prabodh Verma [(1984) 4 SCC 251 : 1984 SCC (L&S) 704] this Court held: (SCC pp. 273-74, para 28)
"The first defect was that of non-joinder of necessary parties. The only respondents to the Sangh's petition were the State of Uttar Pradesh and its officers concerned. Those who were vitally concerned, namely, the reserve pool teachers, were not made parties -- not even by joining some of them in a representative capacity, considering that their number was too large for all of them to be joined individually as respondents. The matter, therefore, came to be decided in their absence. A High Court ought not to decide a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution without the persons who would be vitally affected by its judgment being before it as respondents or at least by some of them being before it as respondents in a representative capacity if their number is too large, and, therefore, the Allahabad High Court ought not to have proceeded to hear and dispose of the Sangh's writ petition without insisting upon the reserve pool teachers being made respondents to that writ petition, or at least some of them being made respondents in a representative capacity, and had the petitioners refused to do so, ought to have dismissed that petition for non-joinder of necessary parties."
(See also All India SC & ST Employees' Assn. v. A. Arthur Jeen [(2001) 6 SCC 380] and Indu Shekhar Singh v. State of U.P. [(2006) 8 SCC 129 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 1916 : (2006) 5 Scale 107] )
30. In the instant case, however, as all the selected candidates were not impleaded as parties in the writ petition, no relief can be granted to the appellant."
39. Again, in Ranjan Kumar, it was held:
"4. On a perusal of the orders impugned, we find that only 40 persons were made respondents before the High Court and hardly a few appointees filed applications for intervention. It is well settled in law that no adverse order can be passed against persons who were not made parties to the litigation. In this context, we may refer with profit to the authority in Prabodh Verma v. State of U.P. [Prabodh Verma v. State of U.P., (1984) 4 SCC 251 : 1984 SCC (L&S) 704] , wherein a three-Judge Bench was dealing with the constitutional validity of two Uttar Pradesh Ordinances which had been struck down by the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court on the ground that the provisions therein were violative of Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution of India. In that context, a question arose whether the termination of the services of the appellants and the petitioners therein as secondary school teachers and intermediate college lecturers following upon the High Court judgment was valid without making the said appointees as parties. The learned Judges observed that the writ petition filed by the Sangh suffered from two serious, though not incurable, defects; the core defect was that of non-joinder of necessary parties, for respondents to the Sangh's petition were the State of Uttar Pradesh and its officers concerned and those who were vitally concerned, namely, the reserve pool teachers, were not made parties -- not even by joining some of them in a representative capacity, considering that their number was too large for all of them to be joined individually as respondents. Thereafter the Court ruled thus: (Prabodh Verma case [Prabodh Verma v. State of U.P., (1984) 4 SCC 251 : 1984 SCC (L&S) 704] , SCC pp. 273-74, para 28)
"28. ... The matter, therefore, came to be decided in their absence. A High Court ought not to decide a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution without the persons who would be vitally affected by its judgment being before it as respondents or at least by some of them being before it as respondents in a representative capacity if their number is too large, and, therefore, the Allahabad High Court ought not to have proceeded to hear and dispose of the Sangh's writ petition without insisting upon the reserve pool teachers being made respondents to that writ petition, or at least some of them being made respondents in a representative capacity, and had the petitioners refused to do so, ought to have dismissed that petition for non-joinder of necessary parties."
5. In the case at hand neither was any rule nor any regulation challenged. In fact, we have been apprised that at the time of selection and appointment there was no rule or regulation. A procedure used to be adopted by the administrative instructions. That apart, it was not a large body of appointees but only 182 appointees. Quite apart from that the persons who were impleaded, were not treated to be in the representative capacity. In this regard, it is profitable to refer to some authorities.
6. In Indu Shekhar Singh v. State of U.P. [Indu Shekhar Singh v. State of U.P., (2006) 8 SCC 129 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 1916] it has been held thus: (SCC p. 151, para 56)
"56. There is another aspect of the matter. The appellants herein were not joined as parties in the writ petition filed by the respondents. In their absence, the High Court could not have determined the question of inter se seniority."
7. In Rashmi Mishra v. M.P. Public Service Commission [Rashmi Mishra v. M.P. Public Service Commission, (2006) 12 SCC 724 : (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 345] , after referring to Prabodh Verma [Prabodh Verma v. State of U.P., (1984) 4 SCC 251 : 1984 SCC (L&S) 704] and Indu Shekhar Singh [Indu Shekhar Singh v. State of U.P., (2006) 8 SCC 129 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 1916] , the Court took note of the fact that when no steps had been taken in terms of Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure or the principles analogous thereto all the seventeen selected candidates were necessary parties in the writ petition. It was further observed that the number of selected candidates was not many and there was no difficulty for the appellant to implead them as parties in the proceeding. Ultimately, the Court held that when all the selected candidates were not impleaded as parties to the writ petition, no relief could be granted to the appellant therein.
8. In Tridip Kumar Dingal v. State of W.B. [Tridip Kumar Dingal v. State of W.B., (2009) 1 SCC 768 : (2009) 2 SCC (L&S) 119] , this Court approved the view expressed by the tribunal which had opined that for absence of selected and appointed candidates and without affording an opportunity of hearing to them, the selection could not be set aside.
9. In Public Service Commission v. Mamta Bisht [Public Service Commission v. Mamta Bisht, (2010) 12 SCC 204 : (2011) 1 SCC (L&S) 208] this Court, while dealing with the concept of necessary parties and the effect of non-implementation of such a party in the matter when the selection process is assailed, observed thus: (SCC pp. 207-08, para 9)
"9. ... in Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia v. Board of Revenue [Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia v. Board of Revenue, AIR 1963 SC 786] , wherein the Court has explained the distinction between necessary party, proper party and pro forma party and further held that if a person who is likely to suffer from the order of the court and has not been impleaded as a party has a right to ignore the said order as it has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. More so, proviso to Order 1 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter called ''Code of Civil Procedure') provides that non-joinder of necessary party be fatal. Undoubtedly, provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are not applicable in writ jurisdiction by virtue of the provision of Section 141 of the Code of Civil Procedure but the principles enshrined therein are applicable. (Vide Gulabchand Chhotalal Parikh v. State of Gujarat [Gulabchand Chhotalal Parikh v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1965 SC 1153] , Babubhai Muljibhai Patel v. Nandlal Khodidas Barot [Babubhai Muljibhai Patel v. Nandlal Khodidas Barot, (1974) 2 SCC 706] and Sarguja Transport Service v. STAT [Sarguja Transport Service v. STAT, (1987) 1 SCC 5 : 1987 SCC (Cri) 19] .)"
10. In J.S. Yadav v. State of U.P. [J.S. Yadav v. State of U.P., (2011) 6 SCC 570 : (2011) 2 SCC (L&S) 140] , it has been held that: (SCC p. 583, para 31)
"31. No order can be passed behind the back of a person adversely affecting him and such an order, if passed, is liable to be ignored being not binding on such a party as the same has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice."
It was further held that: (SCC p. 583, para 31)
"31. ... The litigant has to ensure that the necessary party is before the court, be it a plaintiff or a defendant, otherwise the proceedings will have to fail. In service jurisprudence if an unsuccessful candidate challenges the selection process, he is bound to implead at least some of the successful candidates in representative capacity."
11. In Vijay Kumar Kaul v. Union of India [Vijay Kumar Kaul v. Union of India, (2012) 7 SCC 610 : (2012) 2 SCC (L&S) 491] it has been ruled thus: (SCC p. 619, para 36)
"36. Another aspect needs to be highlighted. Neither before the Tribunal nor before the High Court, Parveen Kumar and others were arrayed as parties. There is no dispute over the factum that they are senior to the appellants and have been conferred the benefit of promotion to the higher posts. In their absence, if any direction is issued for fixation of seniority, that is likely to jeopardise their interest. When they have not been impleaded as parties such a relief is difficult to grant."
12. Recently in State of Rajasthan v. Ucchab Lal Chhanwal [State of Rajasthan v. Ucchab Lal Chhanwal, (2014) 1 SCC 144 : (2014) 1 SCC (L&S) 34] , it has been opined that: (SCC p. 149, para 14)
"14. ... Despite the indefatigable effort, we are not persuaded to accept the aforesaid proponent, for once the respondents are promoted, the juniors who have been promoted earlier would become juniors in the promotional cadre, and they being not arrayed as parties in the lis, an adverse order cannot be passed against them as that would go against the basic tenet of the principles of natural justice."
13. In view of the aforesaid enunciation of law, we are disposed to think that in such a case when all the appointees were not impleaded, the writ petition was defective and hence, no relief could have been granted to the writ petitioners."
40. The principles laid down in the aforesaid authorities are binding on this Court and the learned Advocate General would be right in his submissions, if the decision taken here were to the prejudice of any of the candidates, already selected, much less appointed. The directions of the Division Bench in Abhishek Srivastava would show that for the award of one extra mark vis-à-vis Question No.60 of Question Booklet Series ''A' and the relative question numbers in the other Question Booklet Series, a candidate, in the limited contingency of being short of marks by one below the cutoff, is entitled to the benefit of selection, but appointments already made, would not be disturbed. Also, the benefit of the extra mark vis-à-vis Question No.60 (Question Booklet Series ''A' and corresponding questions in other Question Booklet Series) would remain confined to the writ petitioners who were before the Court up to date of the decision of the Division Bench in Abhishek Srivastava, i.e. 25.08.2021. If this is the nature of the relief proposed to be granted, the non-impleadment of all selected or appointed candidates or issue of notice to them, would hardly be of any consequence.
41. No other point was pressed on behalf of either side.
42. In view of what has been said above and following the judgment of the Division Bench in Abhishek Srivastava (supra), all the writ petitions placed in Group-A are allowed in part, whereas those in Group-B are dismissed. For the writ petitions in Group-A, a mandamus is issued to the respondents directing them to grant one mark to each of the petitioners and that one mark would enure to the benefit of a petitioner, if he/ she is short of the cutoff by one mark. If with the award of one mark to any of the petitioners in Group-A, they find place in the merit-list, the respondents would give them appointment subject to satisfaction of the other conditions, if any. The aforesaid orders, however, would not disturb any selection or appointment, already made.
43. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 20.12.2021
Anoop
(J.J. Munir, J.)
