- (1.) BHAGWAN Din, J.- The State Government (respondent No. 1) took a policy decision to appoint in the year 1995-96 about, 5,000 Urdu Assistant Teachers in the Primary Upgraded Primary Schools, established and managed by the U.P. Basic Shiksha Parishad. In this regard a Government Order No. 2709/15-5-95-75/95. dated 21-7-1995 was issued, providing that such appointments shall be made under the provisions of U.P. Basic Shiksha Adhyapak (Sewa Niyamawali), 1981 in pursuant to the aforesaid policy decision. The District Basic Shiksha Adhikari issued a notice, published on 6-8-1995 in daily newspaper, Amer Ujala Meerut inviting applications for appointment on the posts of Urdu Assistant Teacher. A number of candidates applied for. After scrutiny those found suitable, were allowed to appear in the competitive examination held on 10-9-1995. After evaluation of the performances in the competitive examination, a list of successful candidates was published on 15-9-1995. But, the appointment letters were not issued to the selected candidates for quite a long time, therefore, by means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the District Magistrate, Saharanpur, the respondent No. 5 and the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Saharanpur respondent No. 6 to issue appointment letters to the petitioners.
(2.) INITIALLY , this petition was filed by four petitioners, but later on, 10 others joined the suit. They have been impleaded as petitioners No. 5 to 14. During the pendency of the petition, the petitioners could know that the District Magistrate, respondent No. 5 had already cancelled the selection list by order dated 11-10-1995 and fresh notice inviting applications for appointment on the post of Urdu Assistant Teacher in the district has been issued. Therefore, they sought, by amendment to add in the prayer clause to the effect that: "to issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 11-10-1995 passed by the respondent No. 5 and the advertisement dated 13-9-1998 issued by respondent No. 6."
(3.) MOHD . Aslam, the petitioner No. 2 filed a rejoinder affidavit in the Court after serving a copy thereof on the Chief Standing Counsel. On receipt of the rejoinder affidavit it was believed that the counter-affidavit must have been filed by the respondents in the office. So a direction to the office was made for tracing out the counter-affidavit and placing the same on record. The office on 6-3-2000 reported that no counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents. So much so, there is no entry of receipt in the progress register. It appears that the respondents after supplying a copy of the counter-affidavit to the petitioners' Counsel, did not file the same in the Registry. Since no one was present on that date on behalf of the respondents, therefore, no orders could be passed and the petition was directed to be listed on next day. On the next day also, no one was present for the respondents, therefore, the matter was again directed to be listed on the next day. One Sri Fahim Ahmad, holding brief of Sri S.G. Hasnain, the Counsel for respondents No. 4 and 6 appeared on 9-3-2000 and he was informed that on 13-3-2000 the case will be taken up for admission/hearing. On the said date, the lawyers were on strike, therefore, the matter was taken up on 30-3-2000. Learned Standing Counsel appeared for respondents No. 1, 2 and 5 but did not file even the copy of the counter affidavit supposed to have had been filed by the respondents in the Registry. None was present representing the respondents No. 4 and 6. Thus the petition has not been contested by the respondents.;