- (1.) THIS intra Court Appeal arises out from the judgment and order of learned Single Judge dated 25.2.2015 passed in Writ -A No. 8760 of 2015 (Arvind Kumar Shukla and others Vs. State of U.P. and others).
(2.) FOR the post of L.T. Grade Teachers, a written test was initially conducted by the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board (hereinafter referred to as the 'Board'). On being declared as successful candidates, in the final result declared by the Board on 14.9.2010, the selected candidates were offered appointments in different Intermediate Colleges in the State of Uttar Pradesh. It appears that after the declaration of final result, certain candidates who had appeared in the written test, challenged the correctness of Key Answer in respect of 6 questions of history and one question of Civics by filing various writ petitions in this Court. Writ A No. 61659 of 2010 (Ranjeet Kumar Singh and others Vs. States of U.P. and others) was treated as leading case along with other writ petitions and after thoroughly scrutinizing the seven questions as shown above, the the bunch of petitioners was disposed of by a common judgment and order dated 08.02.2012 giving six directions as contained in paragraph 59 of the judgment, which is reproduced here in below: (I) Petitioners' answer -sheets in respect to above seven questions shall be examined in the manner as adjudicated above (summarised in para 41) and their marks in written test would be determined accordingly. (ii) In case, it is found that petitioners or any one or more of them have secured total marks more than last selected and appointed person, they shall be given appointment. (iii) The above appointments will be made against the advertised vacancies on the post of Trained Graduate Teachers. The persons already appointed in service shall not be made to suffer in any manner, except to the extent one or more of the petitioners on account of increase in his total marks is required to be appointed and in that case, persons last in merit would have to suffer and their appointments, if already made, shall be terminated. I am constrained to give this direction for the reason that vacancies of Teachers advertised for selection are pursuant to requisitions received from the individual secondary institutions and, therefore, only those vacancies which were requisitioned and advertised in the above selection can be made to be governed by this judgment and the subsequent and other vacancies not included in the above selection cannot be taken into consideration to give benefit to any of petitioners by protecting the appointments already made. (iv) The appointment, if any, made pursuant to this order of petitioners, for the purpose of actual payment of salary shall take effect from the date of appointment but for the purpose of pay fixation, seniority etc. it shall relate back from the date the person lower in merit to the respective petitioner was appointed. If there is no person lower in merit to petitioner(s) and he/they are last in merit, then this date would the same as the person next above these petitioner(s). (v) Petitioners shall be entitled to cost which I quantify to Rs. 10,000/ - for each set of writ petition against U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board. (vi) Selection Board, respondent no. 2, is directed to find out the person(s) responsible for committing the aforesaid errors/ mistakes/ blunders in setting of question papers with multiple choice answers and to take appropriate action against them in accordance with law. It shall be at liberty to recover the amount of cost it has to pay under this judgement from such persons found responsible as above.
(3.) FEELING aggrieved with the judgment and order aforesaid, Special Appeal bearing No. 442 of 2012 (U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Vs. State of U.P. and others) was preferred but the same was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 13.3.2012. The operative portion is reproduced herein below: "The learned Singe Judge after considering the entire material has exercised the discretion and has directed the Selection Board to reexamine the copies qua the petitioners only i.e.such candidates who has approached the Court. We do not find any error in the judgment of learned Singe Judge warranting interference. However, we are of the view that the imposition of costs is on the higher side and as such we reduce it to Rs. 110/ -. With the aforesaid modification, in the order of learned Single Judge dated 08.02.2012 this intra Court appeal stands dismissed." Assailing the aforesaid judgment and order passed in Special Appeal, Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 20534 - 20535 of 2014 was preferred before the Apex Court, which have been dismissed on 8.12.2014.;