The Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court on January 27 stayed the recruitment of 6800 reserved category posts in assistant teacher recruitment.
A single-judge bench of Justice Rajan Roy passed this order while hearing a petition filed by Bharti Patel And 5 Others.
By means of the petition, the petitioners have challenged the decision of the State Government dated January 5, 2022 by which they have decided to issue an additional select list of 6,800 (inadvertently referred as 6000 in the earlier order dated January 25, 2022) candidates by revisiting the selection process based on which the appointments have already been made against 69,000 posts, and the consequential action in issuing a select list of 6,800 persons for appointment as Assistant Teacher.
Raghavendra Singh, Advocate General has put in appearance on behalf of the official opposite parties and informed the Court that certain reserved category candidates had filed petitions before the Court, wherein certain orders were passed by this Court based on which, the State has revisited the implementation of reservation policy as also the provisions of the Reservation Act, 1994 and the law on the subject, according to which, such reserved category candidates who are otherwise meritorious, meaning thereby, they have secured marks higher than the cut-off for the general category are entitled to be considered and selected for unreserved posts.
Accordingly, the State Government after revisiting the matter has taken a decision to issue a fresh select list containing names of 6,800 candidates who are those reserved category persons who have secured higher marks than the cut-off for the unreserved category and as this exercise is the result of orders passed by this very Court, therefore, the Court should not interfere in the matter at this stage.
The Advocate General also informed the Court that, in fact, the entire process of selection is informed by the State officials to the NIC and it is the latter which prepares the select list.
Advocate General also submitted that as regards the order of the Supreme Court quoted in the order of the Court dated January 25, 2022, the same is not applicable in the facts of the case, as already clarified hereinabove.
However, on being asked as to how if 69000 posts have already been filled up as noticed in the earlier order, these 6800 selectees would be appointed, against which post they would be appointed, and whether against one post two persons can work and get salary, the Advocate General could not satisfy the Court on this count but stated that State has not taken any decision to oust the already appointed candidates who may have secured lesser marks than these 6800 candidates, the Court noted.
It is nobody’s case certainly not that of the State that before issuing the list of 6800 additional selected candidates, as referred hereinabove, an equivalent number of candidates who have been appointed earlier have been disengaged in accordance with law.
Upendra Nath Mishra, Senior Counsel for respondents says that those writ petitions should be heard on priority basis and he also says that additional 6800 selectees are, in fact, entitled to be appointed and those who are not entitled but have been appointed are liable to be ousted. He agrees to the extent that persons cannot be appointed in excess of the 69000 vacancies which were advertised.
In addition to it, he says that physically handicapped candidates who have also filed writ petitions before the Court, wherein certain orders have been passed by the Court for giving the benefit of the quota prescribed for such persons and therefore, inclusion of these physically handicapped persons in the impugned select list of 6800 persons is in accordance with the orders of this Court and need not to be interfered with, certainly not at the interim stage.
However, on being asked as to whether the respondents on whose behalf he appears is a physically handicapped, he submitted that no, he was not physically handicapped but he is the counsel in Writ-A No13792 of 2020 and connected matters, therefore, he has made the aforesaid statement.
At this stage, Sudeep Seth, Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners, submitted that if 69,000 vacancies of Assistant Teachers were advertised and all of them have been filled up as admitted by the Principal Secretary to the Department in the affidavit filed before the Court as already noticed in the earlier order dated January 25, 2022, then, assuming for a moment that the State was entitled to revisit the selection process and based on such exercise it found that there were 6800 candidates who had a better right of being selected and appointed based on the marks obtained by them, then, at best the select list already published ought to have been modified and an equivalent number of candidates who have secured lesser marks than those 6800 candidates should have been ousted from it in accordance with law and if they have already been appointed, this should have been done after due and proper notice to them, and these 6800 candidates should have been substituted in their place but without undertaking such exercise the action of the State to induct 6800 additional selectees leads to a situation where the 69000 vacancies would be exceeded which is apparently illegal and prejudices the rights of the petitioners to be considered against equivalent number of vacancies (6800) which would otherwise be re-advertised and the petitioners would have a right of being considered for selection against such vacancies irrespective of the fact that they have not succeeded in the earlier selection.
The petitioners in fact have not appeared in the selection ATRE -2019 and are entitled to be considered against such vacancies as and when they are advertised.
“Considering the facts of the case as already noticed in the earlier order dated January 25, 2022 which need not be reiterated and which, at least at this stage, have not been rebutted satisfactorily, especially the order of the Supreme Court dismissing a writ petition wherein it was the case that vacancies in excess of 69000 which were not advertised on December 01, 2018 (A.T.R.E.-2019) should be allowed to be filled up on the basis of the said selection advertised on December 01, 2018, as it has been dismissed with specific observation that posts in excess of those advertised cannot be allowed to be filled up based on the said selection, a piquant situation has been created by the State by the impugned action, prima facie,” the court observed.
The Court said that the appropriate course for the State officials in these circumstances was to comply the said orders, revisit the matter, find out the facts and errors, if any, and on noticing them, to place the same before the Court either seeking its guidance or seeking permission to rectify the select list which had already been implemented or to modify the select list and disengage the persons already appointed, if they were erroneously appointed, as per law, but, instead of doing it, the State officials, for reasons best known to them, have hurried to issue a select list of 6800 persons in addition to the 69000 appointments already made by them without disengaging or canceling the appointment of 6800 candidates already appointed if they had secured lesser marks.
The Court further observed that,
Considering the fact that only 69000 posts were advertised, candidates in excess of 69000 cannot be appointed and they already having been appointed, one fails to understand as to what purpose the issuance of select list of 6800 persons, who may otherwise have been entitled to selection and appointment, seeks to achieve in the factual scenario created by the State, as, in no circumstances, persons can be appointed in excess of 69000 which were advertised. Now, it is for the State to decide what it has to do in the matter as it is the State which has created this situation but one thing is very clear that persons beyond 69000 vacancies cannot be appointed against such posts.
“Considering the discussion made, it is provided that in no circumstances, persons in excess of the 69000 vacancies which were advertised on December 01, 2018 (A.T.R.E 2019), shall be appointed and unadvertised vacancies shall not be filled-up without being advertised and selection being held in respect thereof.
Considering the urgency in the matter as already noticed in one of the orders quoted herein above as the fate of a large number of selectees and also those already appointed may be involved, therefore, list the case on February 18, 2022 along with the connected matters,” the Court ordered.