Nand Kishor Ram vs U.P.Secondary Education, Services Selection Board, Allahbad and others

S.U. Khan, J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The main argument of learned counsel for the respondents No.5 & 6, selected candidates is that petitioner is holding brief for ad hoc appointee in the college in question, i.e. Gandhi Smarak Intermediate College, Raje Sultanpur, District Ambedkar Nagar as by virtue of interim order passed in the writ petition, instead of respondents No.5 & 6, who have been selected by U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board, ad hoc teacher is working and being paid salary.

However, learned counsel for Selection Board has also admitted that it was a mistake to send General candidate against the post, which was indicated by the Management as well as District Inspector of Schools to be reserved for Scheduled Castes candidate.

However, the main question to be decided is of locus standi of the petitioner.

Petitioner is a Scheduled Caste candidate. He participated in the selection process initiated through advertisement no.1 of 2004 and qualified the written test. However, he could not obtain good marks in the interview. Against 610 posts of teachers of social sciences in L.T. Grade in the entire State, 295 posts were reserved for Scheduled Caste candidates. Records were shown to the Court by the learned counsel for the Selection Board. The last selected candidate at Serial No.295 in the list of Scheduled Caste candidates obtained 325 marks, while petitioner obtained 281 marks, (255 marks in the written test and 26 marks in interview). The last Scheduled Caste selected candidate was separated by about 75 candidates from the petitioner. The argument of petitioner that as the post in question was reserved for the Scheduled Caste candidate, hence he should have been appointed irrespective of his position, cannot be accepted.

Respondent No.6 Shyam Ketu Singh was selected and appointed as L.T. Grade Teacher in Hindi. Petitioner had applied against the post of L.T. Grade Teacher in Social Sciences. Respondent No.5 was selected in pursuance of advertisement No.01 of 2004 as L.T. Grade teacher in Social sciences. Petitioner participated in the selection processes initiated by Advertisement nos. 1 of 2002 as well as 1 of 2004. However, he could not be selected on either occasions. As far as respondent No.6 is concerned, he was earlier sent to a College in Mathura for appointment as L.T. Grade teacher in Hindi. However, there the Management did not permit him to join. Accordingly, D.I.O.S., Mathura requested for readjustment of his appointment. Thereafter, respondent No.6 was recommended to be appointed in the college in question. It is stated that post of Hindi teacher in the college in question is to be filled by General candidate. Respondent No.6 had filed Writ Petition No.6437 of 2006. Said writ petition was disposed of on 01.02.2006 with the direction to consider appointment of respondent No.6 in accordance with law. Thereafter, he was directed to be appointed in the college in question.

Through the interim order dated 27.11.2006 passed in this writ petition, it was observed that proper requisition was not sent. In Annexures 1 & 2 to the writ petition which are the requisitions, the only thing which is mentioned is that in the college in question, out of 24 L.T. Grade teachers posts one post is vacant, which is reserved for Scheduled Caste candidate. Name of the subject has not been mentioned. In Annexure2 to the writ petition, subject is mentioned. It is strange that Annexures 1 & 2, which deal with about 20 colleges of District Ambedkar Nagar, every vacant post is shown to be reserved for Scheduled Caste candidates. In any case, it is not a public interest litigation. This Court has no jurisdiction to hear public interest litigation. Even if appointment of respondents No. 5 & 6 are quashed petitioner has got absolutely no chance of being appointed in the college in question. For this reason the writ petition is to be dismissed.

It may also be mentioned that on repeated enquiry from the Court, learned counsel for the petitioner could not state that why he opted for college in question. There may be several other colleges in U.P. in which posts reserved for Scheduled Caste candidates may be available. Even in the district in question, as per Annexures I and II, requisition sent by D.I.O.S, there were twenty colleges and all the vacancies in those colleges were shown to be reserved for Scheduled Caste candidates. Petitioner could opt any other college of the same District. The only reply of leaned counsel for the petitioner, that only in respect of this college petitioner could get definite information, is not satisfactory. The allegation of learned counsel for respondent nos. 5 and 6 that this litigation is sponsored by the adhoc appointee, therefore appears to be correct.

Writ petition is accordingly dismissed.