Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

All the questions framed are answered accordingly.
The petitioners may if otherwise permissible in law and if there is no order or direction of the Courts for completing the selection process pertaining to Advertisement No. 03 of 2013 and if the selection has not been completed as yet in the sense Interview etc. has not been held, raise a challenge on the ground of long delay in completing the same if they are otherwise eligible for the posts in question, subject of course to the rights of opposite parties to raise the plea of delay and laches , if any etc., in this regard. As regards Advertisement No. 01 of 2011 the selection is over with regard to petitioners institution, therefore, it is too late in the day for them.

II. That the order passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge dated 24.10.2018 has been challenged in Special Appeal No.1289 of 2019 which was disposed of by this Hon'ble Court on 08.01.2019 therefore after selection proceeding pursuant to the advertisement no.01/2011 has been finalized. It is relevant to point out here that due to the pendency of the writ petition, the selection proceeding pursuant to the advertisement no.01/2011 could not be completed and after completion of the selection process, final result was published by the Board in which some of the selected candidates have attained the age of superannuation. It is further brought to the notice of the Hon'ble Court that the selection process with respect to the Advertisement No. 01/1999-2000 was not able to attain fruition in the stipulated timeline for the reason of the matter being under consideration before the Hon'ble Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court and after the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Balbeer Kaur dated 16-05-2008, the selection process with regard to the said advertisement was finally completed. Similarly, the selection for Advertisement No. 01/2011 could only be completed after the decision of the Hon'ble Court in Writ Petition No. 6550/2014 (Harish Chandra Dixit & others versus State of U.P. & others) in which an interim order was passed on 03.02.2014 which has been modified on 28.11.2018 and order dated 18-10-2019 passed in Special Appeal Defective No.1289/2018 (Prem Chandra Tripathi & others versus State of U.P. & others). It is further brought to the notice of the Hon'ble Court that Advertisement No. 02/2013 and 03/2013 could not attain finality in the stipulated time as the written examination and Interview for the post of Lecturer was ongoing and the members of the Board, including the Chairman were not present from 2017 for a period of around one and a half year and therefore the process for recruitment for the Advertisement No.03/2013 could not be completed within the stipulated time. It is most humbly submitted before the Hon'ble Court that the delay that has happened in the selection process in due to the circumstances and the situation prevailing at the particular time and there has been not wilful neglect or delay in the entire proceedings, rather it is only for the reasons as explained above that the selection process was not able to be finished within the stipulated time.

III. That in respect of the advertisement no.03/ 2013, a writ petition being Writ-A No.10609/ 2021 was filed by Dr. Dileep Kumar Awasthi and others vs State of U.P. and others) which was disposed of on 07.10.2021 with a direction to exclude the candidates who have attained the age of superannuation.

IV. That for completion of selection pursuant to the advertisement no.03/2013, a Writ Petition bearing Writ-A No.14975/2019 was filed before this Hon'ble Court which was disposed of on 30.09.2019 with a direction to the Board to take appropriate steps for completion of the selection pursuant to the advertisement no.03/2013. In compliance of the order passed by this Hon'ble Court dated 30.09.2019, the Board had decided to complete the selection process by 31.01.2022. It is further stated that for non- compliance of the order passed by this Hon'ble Court dated 30.09.2019 a Contempt Petition No.3069/2021 has been filed in which the Hon'ble Court has passed a detail order for completion of the selection process and in compliance of the aforesaid order. the Board has issued the necessary instruction by order dated 02.01.2022 by which the District Inspector of Schools and the management were directed to submit the relevant papers of two senior most teachers who were eligible on the last date for submission of the application form i.e. 25.02.2014 through online mode."

51. The Counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance in the case of Naushad Anwar and others vs State of Bihar and others; (2014) 11 SCC 203 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the allegations of inordinate delay of four years in the process of recruitment had issued directions to the following effect:

"19. We are anguished by the very thought of the selection process dragging on for as long as four years between 2008 and 2012. Such inordinate delay and indolence is totally undesirable not only because it violates the fundamental rights of candidates who have qualified for appointment during the intervening period but also because it depicts a complete failure on the part of all concerned in regulating the selection and appointment process with a view to ensuring that the same is fair, objective and transparent. We cannot help saying that several questions have bothered us in regard to the selection process itself which leaves much to be desired but since there is no challenge to the selection or the appointments made pursuant thereto, we refrain from making any observation in regard to those aspects. All that we need say is that the selection and appointment of such a large number of employees under the local bodies ought to have been conducted in a more orderly fashion and more importantly the same should have been completed within the time-frame stipulated for the purpose of such reasonable extension thereof as may have become absolutely inevitable. A selection process that lingers on for years can hardly measure up to the demands of objectivity, fairness and transparency especially when the method by which inter se merit of candidates was determined is neither stipulated in the Rules nor any guidelines issued for the selection Committee to follow have been placed before us."