Ranjana Rastogi (Smt.) vs District Inspector of Schools and others

Ran Vijai Singh, J.—This writ petition has been filed by one Ranjana Rastogi, w/o Sri Rupendra Dixit with the following prayer :

"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon''ble Court may graciously be pleased to :

(a) Issue a writ of mandamus for commanding the respondents to permit the petitioner to join as "Teacher" in Trained Snatak Grade in subject English, being Backward Caste candidate, in any Institution in the State of U.P. for which the said post was advertised, within specified time by this Hon''ble Court and to pay the salary of the petitioner as "Teacher" in Trained Snatak Grade w.e.f., Date of appointment 2.7.2006 along with interest @ 12% per annum till the actual date of payment;

(b) In addition to or in substitution to the above, to grant any other relief, for which this Hon''ble Court may deem just and proper in the interest of justice, in favour of the petitioner; and

(c) Award the costs of the applicant."

The petitioner has appeared in the examination of L.T. Grade Teachers pursuant to the advertisement No. 1 of 2005 advertised by respondent No. 2. She has been declared successful and has been placed at Serial No. 3 in the list of selected candidates and has been placed in Dayanand Vedik Inter College, Nagina, District Bijnore. Her case is that when she has gone to join in the Institution, she has been informed that there is no vacancy as on 6th February, 2006 one Kumari Rana Qurashi has already joined. She has also been selected by Commission through advertisement No. 1 of 2004.

Earlier on 9th November, 2006 while issuing the notices to the respective, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were directed to produce the original record pertaining to the selection of petitioner and respondent No. 6. The learned Counsel for petitioner was also directed to take steps to serve on respondent Nos. 3 and 6 through Speed Post. Learned Counsel for petitioner has taken steps on 14th November, 2006 and at present respondent Nos. 1, 4 and 5 are represented through learned Standing Counsel. Respondent No. 2 represented through Sri R.P. Dubey who has not filed counter affidavit but has produced the record before this Court. Respondent No. 6 is represented through Sri Rahul Jain who has also filed counter affidavit. Sri Manu Saxena, learned Counsel for petitioner does not propose to file rejoinder affidavit to the counter affidavits filed by the respective respondents.

With the consent of the parties, this writ petition is disposed of at this stage. Pursuant to the earlier order of this Court D.I.O.S. is also present along with the original record. The Counsel for respondent No. 2 Sri R.P. Dubey and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Staterespondents inform that the vacancy against which Kumari Rana Qurashi respondent No. 6 has joined was advertised in the year 2004 through advertisement No. 1/2004. Learned Standing Counsel submits that when the advertisement No. 1 of 2005 was made, the Commission has not sent list of selected candidate, therefore, for the same post in requisition was sent in the year 2005 also and in fact for one post before the Commission, there were two requisitions.

Be that as it may Sri R.P. Dubey, learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 has produced before the Court the original panel of the selected candidates in which petitioner''s name find place at Serial No. 3. The Court has been informed by the respective Counsels that 21 post of Assistant Teacher L.T. Grade in English (female category) were advertised in which five posts were for General Category, 18 posts reserved for O.B.C. and 17 posts reserved for Schedule Castes. According to the petitioner, she belongs to O.B.C. category and as per record she is at serial No. 3 amongst the selected candidate. The attention of the Court has also been drawn towards Rule 12(10) of the U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission Selection Board Rules, 1998. Subrule (10) is reproduced below:

"(10) The Board shall after preparing the panel in accordance with subrule (8) allocate the Institutions to the selected candidates in respect of the posts of teachers in lecturers and trained graduates grade in such manner that the candidates whose name appears at the top of the panel shall be allocated the Institution of his first preference given in accordance with subrule (9). Where a selected candidate cannot be allocated any of the Institutions of his preference on the ground that the candidates placed higher in the panel have already been allocated such Institutions there remains no vacancy in them, the Board may allocate any Institution to him as it may deem fit."

Since the petitioner has not been permitted to join in the Institution where she was placed because of nonavailability of the vacancy and wrong placement by the Commission in that college, therefore, it is statutory duty of the Commission under subrule (10) of the Rule 12 to place the petitioner according to her choice or according to the availability of the vacancy as it case may be.

I find force in the arguments of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case. I am convicted that appropriate writ be issued directing the respondent No. 2 to consider the petitioner''s case as required under subrule (12) of Rule 10 of the Rules of 1998. I, therefore, direct the U.P. Secondary Education Service Board to consider the case of the petitioner as per subrule (10) of Rule 12 and place her according to her choice or according to the availability of vacancy in accordance with law within a period of one month from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

With this observation, the writ petition is disposed of.

Certified copy of this order may be given to the learned Counsel for the petitioner within a period of one week.