Allahabad High Court
Sheshmani Upadhyay vs State Of U.P. And Others on 16 August, 2021
Author: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
Bench: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 36 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7389 of 2021 Petitioner :- Sheshmani Upadhyay Respondent :- State of U.P. and Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Amrendra Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent :- A.K.S.Parihar Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A.K.S.Parihar, learned counsel for the contesting-respondent.
Petitioner is before this Court with a request commanding the respondents to declare the penal list up to 25% larger than the vacancy in terms of Rule 12(8) of U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Rules, 1998.
Identical issues have been raised in Ambrish Kumar And 30 Others Vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others (Writ - A No. - 6812 of 2021), wherein, this Court after considering the provisions of Rule 12 (8) of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Rules, 1998, has proceeded to dismiss the writ petition by a detailed order dated 23.7.2021. For ready reference, the order dated 23.7.2021 is reproduced herein below.
"Heard Sri Radha Kant Ojha, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Lalit Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners learned Standing Counsel and Sri A.K.S Parihar, learned counsel who appears for respondent No.3.
This petition has been preferred seeking the following reliefs:-
"(a) A writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the Secretary, U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board, Prayagraj/the State Government to fill up all seats against whom selection was made in pursuance of the Advertisement No.01/2016.
(b) A writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the Secretary, U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board Prayagraj/State Government to prepare list, lower to the same as declared, and all candidates who are lying in merits and they have been already selected in some other examinations, their names may be excluded."
All the petitioners had appeared in a selection process initiated by the Board for appointment of Trained Graduate Teachers. According to the disclosures made in the writ petition, as per the advertisement issued a total of 988 vacancies were advertised in the English subject. It is further stated that the list of selected candidates as published bears the names of 1067 candidates. The petitioners contend that the Board should have published a list of at least 1235 candidates being 25% of the total number of vacancies advertised. It is their contention that the select list as prepared constitutes merely 10% of the total number of vacancies which were advertised thus violating the provisions of Rule 12 (8) of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Rules, 1998.
Sri Parihar, learned counsel appearing for the Board on the other hand submits that in terms of Rule 12(8), it is not mandatory for the Commission to prepare a panel up to 25% of the total vacancies. It was his submission that the 1998 Rules itself indicates that 25% is the maximum prescribed and therefore the action of the Board does not merit interference.
Since learned counsels only addressed contentions centering around Rule 12 (8), it would be apposite to extract that provision hereunder:-
"12. Procedure for direct recruitment: ............
(8) The Board then, for each category of post, prepare panel of those found most suitable for appointment in order of merit as disclosed by the marks obtained by them after adding the marks obtained under sub-clause (4) or sub-clause (5) above, as the case may be, with the marks obtained in the interview. The panel for the post of Principal or Headmaster shall be prepared institution-wise after giving due regard to the preference given by a candidate, if any, for appointment in a particular institution whereas for the posts in the lecturers and trained graduates grade, it shall be prepared subject-wise and group-wise respectively. If two or more candidates obtain equal marks, the name of the candidate who has higher quality points shall be placed higher in the panel and if the marks obtained in the quality points are also equal, then the name of the candidate who is older in age shall be placed higher. In the panel for the post of Principal or Headmaster, the number of names shall be three times of the number of the vacancy and for the post of teachers in the Lecturers and Trained graduate grade, it shall be larger (but not larger than twenty-five per cent) than the number of vacancies."
The sole question which therefore arises for consideration is whether the Board was obliged to prepare a select list comprising of names equivalent to 25% of the total number of vacancies which were advertised.
As is evident upon a bare perusal of Rule 12 (8), the language used is "not larger than twenty-five percent". The expression "not larger than.." clearly indicates that it is the maximum and in any case does not mandate the Board to necessarily declare a list of candidates equivalent to 25% of the total number of vacancies advertised. The clear command of the statute is that the Board shall not draw up a select list of candidates numbering more than 25% of the total vacancies advertised. It is essentially a command mandating that the Board shall not exceed the 25% limit as prescribed. It principally places a negative restraint upon the Board to ensure that the maximum ceiling of 25% is not breached.
It becomes relevant to note that the provision does not employ the phrase "not less than.." which may have then lent some credence to the submission of learned senior counsel that the Board was obliged to prepare a list of candidates numbering at least 25% of the total vacancies.
In any case as the Rule stands the Court notes that the Board cannot be held to bear a mandatory obligation to draw up a list equalling at least 25% of the total number of vacancies which were advertised. In light of the interpretation accorded to Rule 12(8) above and since no other argument was urged or addressed, the Court is of the view that the writ petition must fail.
It shall accordingly stand dismissed."
In view of the above, following the same set of reasoning, the present Writ Petition also stands dismissed in terms of Ambrish Kumar (supra).
Order Date :- 16.8.2021 A.K.Srivastava