- (1.) INSTANT clarification applications have been moved for clarification of the judgment and orders dated 12.07.2013 & 28.11.2013 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.303 (S/B) of 2011 whereby bunch of writ petitions was decided.
(2.) THE abovementioned writ petitions were preferred by the candidates who had appeared in the PCS (J) examination, 2006 challenging that the moderation of marks done by the U.P. Public Service Commission was not in accordance with the guidelines rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the Sanjay Singh's case. After exchange of pleadings and hearing the parties following order was passed: - "34. In view of the discussion made above, Writ Petition Nos.303 (SB) of 2011, 308 (SB) of 2011, 313 (SB) of 2011, 314 (SB) of 2011, 307 (SB) of 2011, 315 (SB) of 2011, 318 (SB) of 2011, 320 (SB) of 2011, 328 (SB) of 2011, 437 (SB) of 2011 and 1815 (SB) of 2009 (wherein the petitioners were called for interview) deserve to be partly allowed and are hereby partly allowed. Remaining Writ Petition Nos. 1553 (SB) of 2010, 304 (SB) of 2011, 309 (SB) of 2011, 311 (SB) of 2011, 312 (SB) of 2011, 316 (SB) of 2011, 317 (SB) of 2011, 321 (SB) of 2011, 327 (SB) of 2011, 499 (SB) of 2011 and 436 (SB) of 2011 have no force and deserve to be dismissed and are hereby dismissed. It is provided that the Commission shall rectify the mistake with regard to roll No. 003554, Master Fake No. 00771 and appointment shall be offered to the candidate who ought to have been appointed in his place. However, keeping in view the aforementioned case law as relied upon by the learned counsel for the selected candidates and keeping in view the fact that there was no mistake of the candidate in this matter, we are not inclined to cancel his appointment and accordingly direct that his appointment shall not be cancelled. The Commission is also further directed to offer appointment to any of the petitioners of Writ Petition Nos. 303 (SB) of 2011, 308 (SB) of 2011, 313 (SB) of 2011, 314 (SB) of 2011, 307 (SB) of 2011, 315 (SB) of 2011, 318 (SB) of 2011, 320 (SB) of 2011, 328 (SB) of 2011, 437 (SB) of 2011 and 1815 (SB) of 2009 of this bunch, who have been interviewed and have been awarded more marks than the candidate at Roll No.003554, Master Fake No. 00771, if there is no impediment against them. Seniority of the selected candidates shall also stand corrected according to the fresh merit list prepared in compliance of the order of this Court. 35. The records, which are kept in 12 boxes shall be returned to the U.P. Public Service Commission, who in turn shall keep them in safe custody. It is made clear that in order to comply this Court's Order, if they want to re -open the boxes, the boxes shall be opened strictly in presence of the Chairman of the U.P. Public Service Commission and re -sealed the boxes. This arrangement is provided subject to the orders, if any, passed in S.L.P. preferred by any of the parties, within a period of limitation."
(3.) THEREAFTER , the petitioners moved several representations before the U.P. Public Service Commission praying for their appointments but U.P. Public Service Commission did not offer them any appointment and moved a clarification application wherein the aforesaid order was clarified as under: - "We clarify that if any of the petitioner has secured more marks (grand total) than the candidate Roll No.003554, Master Fake No.00771 in his respective category then such petitioner shall be offered appointment provided his result has been adversely affected by the said mistake of the Commission. The intention of the Court was only to offer appointment to those petitioner whose result has been adversely affected by the mistake of the U.P. Public Service Commission." Now the petitioners have again come before this Court for clarification of the orders dated 12.07.2013 and 28.11.2013 passed by this Court which are very clear, in which it was directed that if the result of any of the petitioners was adversely affected by the said mistake of the U.P. Public Service Commission then he shall be offered appointment. We again clarify the same. We, in the interest of justice direct the U.P. Public Service Commission to examine the cases of aforementioned petitioners, after giving them an opportunity of hearing. If the result of any of the petitioner is found to have been adversely affected by the aforementioned mistake of U.P.P.S.C. then such petitioners shall be offered appointment. This exercise shall be completed by the U.P. Public Service Commission within three months from today.;