The Allahabad High Court has given great relief to the candidates waiting for the recruitment of TGT-2016.
The Court has directed the Secondary Education Service Selection Board to complete the selection process by February 15, 2023 under the action plan given to the remaining posts according to the merit of the waiting list and their option.
A Single Bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh passed this order while hearing a petition filed by Manoj Kumar Pandey.
The writ petition has been filed seeking a direction upon the respondent authorities to offer counselling to the petitioner a candidate placed on the wait list dated 4.1.2022, prepared with reference to the result declared for T.G.T Social Science, under Advertisement.
In the matter, the petitioner had participated in the above described examination conducted by the respondent U.P Secondary Education Services Selection Board under Advertisement. Against 1050 posts of T.G.T (Boys Varg-01) advertised, 500 posts were earmarked for open category, 285 for OBC category, 263 for SC category and 02 for ST category. The petitioner secured 405.32 marks and was placed at serial no 539 in order of merit, in the open category.
Later, on 4.1.2022 a wait list was declared by the Board wherein the petitioner was placed at serial no.40 in the general category. The total wait list appears to contain names of 48 general category candidates, 27 OBC category candidates, 25 SC category candidates and one ST category candidate. Similar wait list was prepared for TGT (Girls Varg) wherein 7 candidates were placed in the wait list under the general category, 2 under the OBC category (physically disabled), 4 under the SC category and 01 under the ST category. Names of all candidates mentioned in the wait list have been mentioned in order of their merit.
Grievance of the petitioner is, no objective criteria has been followed and no transparency exists as may allow the petitioner to enforce his preferential right to appointment at an institution of his choice, commensurate to his merit position. Depending on individual facts operating in individual districts, and dependent on the whims and fancies of certain authorities as also management of various institutions, appointment letters are being issued on a pick and choose basis, leading to negation of rule of merit.
An affidavit came to be filed by the Director of Secondary Education taking a stand that the competent authority to accord placement of institutions would be borne by the Director. However, that affidavit pertains to contempt proceedings under an earlier advertisement. Also, a Government Order dated 13.08.2021 exists. However, it does not lay down any procedure.
From a plain reading of the above provisions it transpires, in the first place, the responsibility to prepare the Panel of selected candidates in order of merit, accommodating consideration of reservation etc., rests on the Board. While preparing that Panel, the Board has to take into account the choice of institution offered by each selected candidate. The institutions are accordingly offered to selected candidates subject to their relative merit position and order of preference. That Panel list is then communicated to individual DIOS in 75 districts of the State by the Board. The DIOS then proceeded under Section 11(2) of the Act read with Rule 12(11) of the Rules. A copy of the same is also sent to the Joint Director of the U.P Secondary Education Services Selection Board.
Upon receipt of such a list, the DIOS sends individual letters to the institutions falling within his/her jurisdiction calling upon the management of those institutions to issue necessary appointment letters to the selected candidates named in the list, within the next thirty days. Inasmuch as names are mentioned against different notified posts at each institution, the management of individual institutions is obligated to send out appointment letters to that person only. The selected persons are then enabled to join that institution within 15 days. The timelines, for issuance of appointment letters and for joining by the selected candidates are extendable within reasonable limits. To that extent there is no dispute between the parties.
The Court observed that,
The cause arises with the petitioner, since many selected candidates who were first issued appointment letters failed to or did not join their respective institutions. This gave rise to continuance of notified vacancies, at some institutions. At this stage, according to the petitioner, individual DIOS and management authorities are acting on their whims and fancies, overlooking the superior claim of a person placed higher in the wait list and therefore carrying a preferential right to choose from amongst the available vacancies/institutions. The Act and the Rules do leave some doubt as to the exact procedure to be followed, in this regard.
In the first place, under Section 11(5) of the Act, the Act allows for fresh names or names to be forwarded by the Board to the management for the purposes of filling up such vacancies. Then Rule 13(3) of the Rules further provides that the DIOS may, on the request of the management of an institution (where such vacancies continue to exist) intimate fresh name or names standing next in order of merit on the Panel under intimation to the Joint Director of the Board. That is the statutory scheme.
However, in the context of a high number of vacancies originally notified distributed over numerous institutions spread all over the State in 75 districts, not one single coordinated action takes place. While the original selection is conducted by the Board as a composite exercise wherein choice of the selected candidates is also accounted for, subject to their merit position whereby the higher placed candidates have the opportunity to choose the the district and institution and their choice first, the lower place candidates often are accommodated on their second, third, fourth or fifth choice of institution as is ascertained by the Board at the time of granting interviews.
Yet, at the stage of exercise under Section 11(5) of the Act read with Rule 13(3) of the Rules, such a statutory Scheme that is based on fair play is given a complete go-bye without any good reason. Also different DIOS and different institutions act in a short and variable time frame and sometimes on their free will in making choice of the candidates to whom appointment letters may be issued and who may be allowed to join at any particular institution.
The Court said that,
Thus, in ideal circumstances, all the DIOSs and all management must act in concert and fill up all vacancies so notified within a fixed time frame. Yet, if all DIOSs were to simultaneously look into the Panel of wait list candidates and offer them position/appointment in order of their seniority placement in the list, it would create chaos. It is also not possible to compel the District level authorities in all 75 districts to act at one time to allow for the spirit of the Act, to prevail. There is no single forum available where DIOS of all 75 districts may meet to collectively decide to offer placement to selected candidates in the wait list as per choice of institution, in order of their merit position.
In view of the above, the scheme of the Act has been followed. The Board is the central body equipped to fulfill that object and purpose of the Act. As noted above, the Board ascertains the choice of the selected candidates and offers placement to selected candidates placed in the select list, in order of their merit position, keeping in mind their choice.
There is no reason to not follow the same procedure while giving placement to candidates placed in the wait list. This is not contrary to the Scheme of the Act. It shall also be in the interest of institutions and the society to allow such choices to arise as that may lead to more seats to be filled up in a transparent manner, in a time bound manner.
J.N Maurya, Chief Standing Counsel has informed, at present, against Advertisement, there exist unfilled vacancies. These must be offered to and filled by candidates available in the respective wait lists prepared by the Board, in a transparent and verifiable manner.
Accordingly, the Court directed the Board and the State authorities to fill up all vacancies existing as on date, except where specific Court orders already exist with respect to individual posts and or candidates. Those may be identified as on 30.09.2022.
The Court further said that,
In present facts, such compliance may be made, not later than 15th February 2023. Provided further in case any appointment letter is not issued by the Management within the first 30 days or next 15 days or if no intimation is received by the D.I.O.S concerned (as above), he may at the instance of the affected candidate, intervene and ascertain the correct facts. If warranted, the D.I.O.S may cause issuance of such letter of appointment, at that stage, in that eventuality, subject to any order by a Court of law.
Joining by the selected candidates, may be ensured preferably within a period of 15 days from the receipt of the appointment letter and in any case not later than two months from the date of receipt of the appointment letter by selected candidate. Such exercise may be completed by 15th April, 2023.
On 30th April 2023, all D.I.O.S may again account for all still existing/surviving vacancies, if any.
They shall send a necessary confirmation of appointment granted and joining allowed in terms of Supplementary Panel-I prepared and circulated by the Board, together with surviving vacancies, if any, to the Joint Director, Secondary Education.
In the event of any further vacancy surviving and subject to any wait listed candidate/s being available on the waitlist (who may yet not have been invited), at the end of five months, the aforesaid exercise may be repeated for preparation of Supplementary PanelII and so an on so forth till all vacancies are filled up or till all wait listed candidates have been offered an opportunity (as above), whichever is earlier.
The above Scheme may be applied by the Board and the Directorate of Secondary Education to all other pending and future, similar recruitments (governed by same provisions of the Act), subject to any contrary direction already issued, as on date. These directions may also be made applicable while preparing the original select panel, in future.
With the aforesaid directions, the Court disposed of the writ petition.