Allahabad High Court
Sachin Kumar vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 26 March, 2021
Bench: Manish Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 30
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5228 of 2021
Petitioner :- Sachin Kumar
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Shivendu Ojha,Sr. Advocate Sri Radha Kant Ojha
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Aakash Rai
Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.
Heard Shri Shivendu Ojha, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned State Counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 4.
The present writ petition has been filed for directing the Director of Education (M), Prayagraj, Uttar Pradesh to make placement of the petitioner in the colleges where the posts are still vacant as per Rule -13(3) of the U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board Rules, 1998.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was selected for appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher (L.T) Grade for Hindi subject in General Category and his name is in the waiting list.
The similarly situated persons placed at Serial Nos. 73,76 and 80 have approached this Court, when the appointment was not given by filing Writ A No. 9259 of 2020 ( Ashutosh Mishra and 3 others Vs. State of U.P. and others). The said writ petition has been decided by this Court vide its order judgment and order dated 04.11.2020 and the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the same.
The learned counsel for the respondents is unable to dispute that the case of the petitioner is identical to the case of Ashutosh Mishra (supra).
The judgment and order dated 04.11.2020 passed by this Court in the case of Ashutosh Mishra( supra) is quoted hereinbelow:-
"Heard Sri R.K.Ojha, learned senior advocate assisted by Sri Shivendu Ojha, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Aakash Rai, learned counsel and learned standing counsel for the respondents.
By means of the present writ petition the petitioner has prayed for the following relief:
"A writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Director of Education (M) U.P. Prayagraj, the respondent no.2 to make placement of the petitioners in the colleges where posts are still vacant, in which no person has joined under Rule-13(3) of the U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board Rules, 1998 as directed by the U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board Prayagraj itself within some stipulated time as fixed by this Hon'ble Court."
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in pursuance of the advertisement dated 17.1.2012 select list of Assistant Teacher in L.T.Grade was published and as per the provisions of Rules 12(8) and 13(3) of the U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board Rules, 1998, names of 25% more candidates were placed in the said list for placement and needed to be accommodated on the vacant post. The name of the petitioner was also there. Learned counsel has drawn attention to the order passed in Writ A No. 22128 of 2018 (Sanjai Kumar and others vs. State of U.P. and others), relevant portion of which is quoted below:
"I am of the considered opinion that the Board is under an obligation to draw a select panel against the advertised vacancy, which could be larger than the total number of vacancies already advertised subject to a maximum of 25% over and above it. A mandamus accordingly is issued to the Board to draw a revised select panel in accordance with Rule 12(8), with in a period of 4 weeks' from the date of presentation of the certified copy of this order. The concern of the Board otherwise stands protected inasmuch as the appointment to selected candidates would be restricted to the actual number of posts which are available for being filled up and mere drawing of select panel would not pose any difficulty. The Board is also expected to act further in accordance with law for the purposes of filling of existing vacancies."
When the aforesaid order was not complied with, Contempt Application (Civil) No. 294 of 2019 was moved, in which the following direction was issued:
"In view thereof, it is expected that the District Inspector of Schools shall send the requisite information of such candidates, who have not reported or joined the allotted institutions, forthwith to the Director of Education through their respective Regional Directors. It is expected that the Director, thereafter, shall make allotment of such institutions to the selected candidate(s), strictly on the basis of merit, from the panel supplied by the U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board. The allotment of the institution to the candidate(s) shall also be uploaded on the official website. "
It is stated that pursuant thereto some posts were filled in.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that instead of that some selected candidates have not joined and vacancy exists. Specific fact in this regard has been stated in paragraph 14 of the writ petition. He further submits in this view of the matter the petitioner has made a representation before the respondent no.2 for their accommodation in the vacant post which are still pending. He further submits that a direction may be issued to the respondent no.2 to decide the claim of the petitioner expeditiously within the time fixed by this Court.
To this submission, learned standing counsel no objection.
Be that as it may, the writ petition is disposed of with the liberty to the petitioner to filed a detailed representing annexing therewith all necessary documents along with a copy of this writ petition, its annexures and copy of this order within a period of ten days before the respondent no.2 and on receipt of the same the respondent no.2 shall pass an appropriate and reasoned order, in accordance with law, within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of such representation.
It is made clear that the Court has not adjudicated the claim of the petitioner on merits."
In view of the aforesaid, the present writ petition is finally disposed off in terms of the judgment and order dated 04.11.2020 passed by this Court in the case of Ashutosh Mishra( supra) with the liberty to the petitioner to file a detailed representing annexing therewith all necessary documents along with a copy of this writ petition, its annexures and copy of this order within a period of ten days before the respondent no.2 and on receipt of the same the respondent no.2 shall pass an appropriate and reasoned order, in accordance with law, within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of such representation.
Order Date :- 26.3.2021
Ashish
