Devendra Pratap Singh, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the Petitioner, learned Standing Counsel, Sri S.R. Singh for the Respondent Board and Sri Ashok Khare for the contesting Respondent No. 6.
(2.) IN pursuance of an advertisement No. 1 of 2002 inviting application for recruitment to the post of Principal and Head Master of various High Schools and Intermediate Colleges, including the post of Principal in Shri Paramhans Inter College, Deogaon in district Jalaun, the Petitioner and Respondent No. 6 had applied but the result of recruitment could not be declared in view of various litigations before this Court as well as before the Apex Court. However, the issue involved was set at rest by the Apex Court on 16.5.2008 where -after the result was declared by the Respondent Board where the Petitioner was placed at serial number 1 for recruitment to the aforesaid institution while the Respondent No. 6 was placed at serial number 2. The Respondent No. 6 preferred writ petition No. 3707 of 2009 challenging the award of 80 marks to the Petitioner for additional experience. The Petitioner filed writ petition No. 65679 of 2009 by which enquiry was sought to be made with regard to his candidature. Both the writ petitions were connected and by a detailed order dated 27.10.2010, a learned Single Judge of this Court has held that the Petitioner was entitled to only 35 marks and not 80 marks due to wrong declaration by the Petitioner and the recommendation made in his favour was quashed while the writ petition filed by the Petitioner was dismissed and Board was directed to take further follow up action within eight weeks from the presentation of the certified copy of the order dated 27.10.2010. It appears that in pursuance thereof, the Committee of the Board vide its decision dated 7.1.2011 cancelled the recommendation made in favour of the Petitioner and recommended the appointment of the Respondent No. 6 and this decision was duly ratified by the Selection Board in its meeting dated 10.1.2011. and accordingly an order was passed by the Board on 18.1.2011.
(3.) THE principal argument of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that he was not given an opportunity before the decision was taken by the Board despite an order dated 12.1.2011 passed by this Court. It is apparent from the record that against the decision of the learned Single Judge, the Petitioner had preferred a Special Appeal No. 1918 of 2010 which was finally disposed off on 12.1.2011 asking the Board to provide an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner before taking a decision. However, the Division Bench did not set aside the finding of fact recorded by the learned Single Judge. It is apparent from the facts as noted hereinabove that the decision by the Board had already been taken on 10.1.2011 while the order of Special Appeal was passed on 12.1.2011 and thus it was an infructuous order. Even otherwise, as the judgment of the learned Single Judge has not been set aside by any competent court, the Board could not have gone against it and even if the Petitioner had been given an opportunity, it would not have served any purpose. Before this Court also, learned Counsel for the Petitioner has failed to point out as to how he suffered due to not being provided an opportunity of hearing. On these facts, it is apparent, that hearing would have been an empty formality.;