S.S. Chauhan, J. - (1.) THIS petition has been filed challenging the orders dated 24.09.2008 and 07.10.2008 inter alia on the ground that no opportunity was given to the petitioners before cancelling their appointments although they were duly selected candidates in pursuance to the advertisement issued by the opposite parties and by following the Government Order dated 06.05.2008, which was issued in pursuance to the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court dated 12.06.2007 passed in Special Appeal No. 786 of 2007, Parvati Devi v. State of U.P. and Ors.
(2.) THE facts in question are in narrow campus that an advertisement dated 15.10.2007 was made by opposite party No. 3 in daily newspaper Amar Ujala for selection of Shiksha Mitra in various primary schools situated in different districts in Raebareli. In pursuance to the advertisement, the petitioners and others applied for the post of Shiksha Mitra having requisite qualification and the process for selection was completed. In the meantime, a Government Order dated 06.05.2008 was issued in pursuance to the order of this Court passed in Special Appeal No. 786 of 2007, Parvati Devi v. State of U.P. and Ors., in which this Court found that the earlier Government Order dated 10.10.2005 was not proper and legal and that only bonus marks can be allocated to the candidates, who have worked as Instructor/Supervisor in the Non -formal Education Scheme. It is stated that on account of the judgment dated 12.06.2007, the selection was stayed and could not proceed as the Government was considering the implementation of the judgment of this Court dated 12.06.2007. The Government came out finally with the Government Order dated 06.05.2008 and ultimately the selection proceeded and the petitioners and other similarly situated persons were selected. The controversy started after the appointments of the petitioners were cancelled and a fresh selection was made in pursuance to the Government Orders dated 10.10.2005 and 24.04.2006 only on the assumption that the advertisement contemplated the Government Orders dated 10.10.2005 and 24.04.2006, therefore, the selection was to be made on the basis of the said Government Orders. The petitioners' appointments were cancelled as a result thereof. Hence this writ petition.
(3.) SUBMISSION of learned Counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners were not afforded any opportunity before cancelling their appointments. It is also submitted that in pursuance to the judgment dated 12.06.2007 passed by this Court in Special Appeal No. 786 of 2007, the Government Orders dated 10.10.2005 and 24.04.2006 came to an end and no Government Orders were existing thereafter. After the judgment, selection process was stayed by the opposite parties till the Government Order dated 06.05.2008 was issued. Submission is that since there was vacuum and the authorities were not sure as to in what manner the selection shall proceed, they waited U.P. to the time of the issuance of the Government Order dated 06.05.2008 and thereafter they proceeded in accordance with the said Government Order. It is submitted that the opposite parties committed gross blunder in making fresh selection by relying upon the terms of the advertisement and the Government Orders mentioned therein and by making fresh selection and thereby multiplying the proceedings and litigation and also putting the petitioners' future in jeopardy.;