- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents, Sri S. R. Singh, Advocate, appearing on behalf of respondent no.3 and Sri Y. K. Saxena, Advocate, appearing on behalf of respondent nos.6 to 8.
(2.) Petitioners' belong to the Scheduled Caste category. Against Advertisement No. 1 of 2002 issued by U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board (in short referred to as the Selection Board) petitioner no.1 was selected and recommended for appointment in Sri Nehru Inter College, Raddhana, Kanpur Dehat and petitioner no.2 for Nagar Palika Inter College, Orai, District Jalaun. Both the petitioners could not join in the aforesaid colleges for which the recommendation was made. However, thereafter on their representations the Selection Board provided for their adjustment in Sri Gandhi Vidyalaya Inter College Jhinjhak, Kanpur Dehat. The necessary orders for adjustment with regard to petitioner no.1 was passed on 20th April, 2005 and with regard to petitioner no.2 it was passed on 6th July, 2005, pursuant thereto petitioner no.1 joined on 2nd May, 2005 and petitioner no.2 joined on 20th September, 2005.
(3.) Fresh advertisement was issued in the year 2005 in which two posts against which petitioner nos.1 and 2 were adjusted in Sri Gandhi Vidyalaya Inter College, Jhinjhak, Kanpur Dehat, were also advertised. A challenge was made before this Court by some of the selected candidates pursuant to the selection made in the year 2005 that the adjustment of selected candidates in the earlier selections against vacancies advertised in the year 2005 was bad and illegal. The matter came up before this Court and was decided in the case of Raja Ram Vs. State of U.P and others,2009 10 ADJ 585. The learned Single Judge held that said adjustment was patently illegal and in teeth of the provisions of the Act, 1982 and the Rules framed thereunder. The Court further directed that appropriate action be taken by the authorities against all such kind of appointments by adjustments against advertised vacancies. The relevant extract of the judgment as contained in para 43 and 44 is reproduced below : 43. This Court, therefore, holds that filling up of the advertised vacancies subject matter of advertisement no. 1 of 2005 (a) by adjustment, in exercise of powers under Rule 13(5) of 1998 Rules, of candidates selected in pursuance to the earlier advertisement, (b) by transfer of candidates from other institutions against advertised vacancies (c) by compassionate appointment (d) by promotion and (e) by absorption of subject experts under Section 21-E is patently illegal and in teeth of the provisions of the Act, 1982 and the Rules framed thereunder. 44. This Court holds that all such kind of appointments against advertised vacancies are illegal and appropriate action be taken by the authorities accordingly within four weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is filed before the Secretary, Secondary Education U.P. Government, Lucknow.;