Dilip Gupta, J. - (1.) THE petitioner had earlier filed Writ Petition No. 49941 of 2011 which was dismissed by the judgment and order dated 2nd September, 2011 with the following observations: The petitioner is aggrieved by the declaration of the list of selected candidates for the post of Principal pursuant to Advertisement No. 2/2008 on 3rd August, 2011 by the U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board, Allahabad. It is stated that the petitioner had earlier filed Writ Petition No. 24508 of 2011 as he was not called for interview which was held on 10th March, 2011. The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of on 3rd May, 2011 with a direction to the Secretary of the Board to decide the representation filed by the petitioner in accordance with law by means of the reasoned and speaking order within a period of two weeks from the date of production of the certified copy of the order. It is further stated that despite the aforesaid directions issued by the Court, the Board did not decide the representation as a result of which the petitioner filed Contempt Petition No. 3763 of 2011 in which notices have been issued. Learned Standing Counsel appears for respondent Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5. Sri K.S. Kushwaha appears for respondent no.2. This petition has been filed with the grievance that the Board has now published the result in which respondent Nos. 6, 7 and 8 have been selected as Principals in various Institutions. As noticed hereinabove, the petitioner was not called for interview by the Board. For this grievance the petitioner had earlier filed Writ Petition No. 24508 of 2011 which was disposed of on 3rd May, 2011. It is only when the petitioner is apprised of the reason for not calling him for interview that the petitioner can assail the declaration of the result, if so advised. This petition at this stage is premature. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
(2.) THE petitioner has now placed on record the communication dated 21st September, 2011 sent by the Secretary of the Board informing the petitioner that the application submitted by the petitioner pursuant to the advertisement was not received in the Department. It is stated in paragraph 9 of the writ petition that the petitioner had sent the application form by registered post on 29th January, 2009.
(3.) THE advertisement has not been annexed with this petition. It is, therefore, not possible to ascertain what was the last date for submission of the application form. The petitioner has also not enclosed any document of the postal department to show on what date, if any, the application was received. The statement made in the impugned order have not been rebutted by any documentary evidence. The petitioner is, therefore, not entitled to any relief.;