Allahabad High Court
Rajani Kumari vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 21 September, 2020
Author: Manoj Kumar Gupta
Bench: Manoj Kumar Gupta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 35 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5211 of 2020 Petitioner :- Rajani Kumari Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Siddharth Khare,Sr. Advocate Shri Ashok Khare Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.K.S.Parihar Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.
On 13.7.2020, a co-ordinate bench of this Court has passed the following order:
"Heard Sri Siddharth Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A.K.S. Parihar, learned counsel representing the respondent No.3, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
No notice need to be issued, at this stage, to the respondent No.4.
The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that selection in question is subject matter of the advertisement 2013 in which selection process has been done in the year 2017. He argues that though the petitioner had applied in category '2' meant for women college, however, the result of the petitioner was shown only in category '1' meant for boys college. The petitioner belongs to scheduled caste category and had secured total marks 294.69. The last cut-off merit for the scheduled caste candidate was 299.12 marks in the final selection held by the respondent. However, when the certain candidates did not turn up to join vacancies, there were such left over vacancies against which the pending merit list of the candidates came to be exhausted pursuant to the order dated 26th November, 2018 passed in the Writ-A No.- 22128 of 2018 and the order of Contempt Court dated 22nd January, 2020 passed in the Contempt Case No.- 294 of 2019. Thus, after this above exercise was completed by the respondent, they published final select list of the candidates of the various categories against pending vacancies from the select list, already prepared. The candidate who has been impleaded as respondent No.4 came to be selected in the subject as Assistant Teacher (English) in L.T. Grade having scored 294.69 marks.
The argument, therefore, advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner having also secured similar marks ought to have been considered but she was not called for counseling because of declaration of result in the wrong category.
Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3 submits that though the petitioner had not been called for counseling because of the declaration of her result in wrong category but the respondent No.4 being senior in age, in any way, could have been selected as having scored same marks as of petitioner and so even if petitioner had been called for counseling, it would not have affected the present result.
The date of birth of the petitioner is admittedly 13th October, 1987 whereas that of the respondent No.4 is 26th June, 1986.
At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that her candidature can further be considered in case if the vacancies are still left over.
On a query made to the above effect to the learned Standing Counsel, he sought time to verify the position and have instructions in that regard.
In view of the above, learned Standing Counsel is granted two weeks' time to have instructions in the matter and file necessary affidavit on limited question as to whether there are still vacancies unfilled pursuant to the advertisement of 2013 in respect of which the selection has been made as late as in February, 2020.
List this matter on 29th July, 2020 showing the name of Sri A.K.S. Parihar as counsel for the respondent No.3."
In pursuance of the said order, learned Standing Counsel has received instructions from the Director of Education (Madhyamik), Uttar Pradesh, in which it is admitted that in English, Category-II, SC category, three posts are still vacant.
Sri A. K. S. Parihar, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 3 on instructions admits that there was a mistake on part of the Commission in declaring result of the petitioner in Category-I meant for boys' college, although the petitioner had applied for Category II i.e. women college. He submitted that the petitioner had applied under SC category; the last cut off mark of the candidate in the select list as well as waiting list was 294.692. He further submits that although there is no dispute that the petitioner had obtained equal marks but the last candidate whose name was included in the waiting list with equal marks was elder to the petitioner. Consequently, the petitioner was excluded.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that under relevant rules, the waiting list should be to the extent of 25 per cent of the total vacancies.
Learned counsel for the Commission submitted that liberty be granted to the Commission to examine the claim of the petitioner afresh.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach respondent no. 3 within two weeks along with a fresh representation. In that event, respondent no.3 shall take decision in next three weeks.
(Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.) Order Date :- 21.9.2020 Kuldeep